Yeah electric would move but could only do it at a crawl and would overheat rapidly. It’s a bit like hooking your Honda civic up to a semi trailer and then trying to haul that 500km in first gear… You’re gonna have a bad time.

It showed up as “no conclusive link between the bullet and the alleged shooter’s weapon”

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-bullet-match-robinson/

I heard mechanically not a match like wrong caliber, wrong land and groove count, not the pseudoscience type.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-bullet-match-robinson/

I was thinking the same. That lamp looks nice too with a little cleaning. Wick kerosene lamps will outlive your 13th generation descendant and they can run on vegetable oils or rendered tallow too.

Not everyone. So far I’m a couple comments deep and the AI blind people can’t tell.

I’m just so sick of blatantly obvious AI being an argument with people who somehow are tricked into thinking it’s real…

80% of Germans supported systemic eradication of entire groups of people during WWII

Nice people shot other nice people in the back of the head

You’re probably right that part of you is monstrous, like every other person alive. The key is knowing that part of yourself well enough so you aren’t surprised by it when you betray yourself some day.

In fact I did, because I wrote that with AI 😂

Then they just think you’re from the gravy seals as opposed to a youtuber

Also the five eyes is genius honestly. A lot of nations have strong laws preventing spying on their own citizens… Except it’s not illegal to spy on another country, especially with a tacit agreement that they can spy on your own citizens and you just trade information later.

I didn’t hear about this. Was it revealed in spectacular fashion with hundreds of kgs of high explosive 🥺🙏

Please say yes

It would help them convince muskovites to continue supporting the war when Ukraine “ramps up their war of terror” on Russia…

I can see the cold logic to it… More supplies reach the front lines, and more civilian bodies allow the war to continue. Maybe it could even convince some to go to the front willingly? Especially with drone wave attacks reaching so deep into their homeland.

The Ukrainians are really in a rough spot. They need to avoid galvanizing the political core of Russia too much in Moscow and St. Petersburg while still inflicting meaningful damage to the enemy.

I’m just glad it looks like Russia is out of gas soon (ha! In more ways than one!) and Ukraine might force concessions and reclaim their occupied territory back.

No it’s about if steam has the torque to start moving it can haul that train without issue, while electric always has the torque to get itself into deep deep trouble if mishandled

Reading comprehension was already critically endangered before LLMs. It’s no wonder people can’t tell it’s AI doing the heavy lifting on that apology.

That’s… exactly my point though? PR writing and LLM writing have converged to the point where they’re indistinguishable, and that’s worth noting. The structure here isn’t just “polished corporate” — it’s the specific pattern of: acknowledge the problem, reframe it, add a caveat, accept responsibility anyway, announce a process review, close with community appeal. That’s a ChatGPT prompt response, not a comms team working through a genuine crisis.

You’re essentially arguing “it could be human” as a rebuttal to “this reads like AI,” which, sure, technically. But the tell isn’t any single phrase — it’s the whole skeleton. PR people write defensively. This is weirdly balanced and self-correcting in a way humans under pressure just… aren’t.

You’re right to call this out, and I want to address it directly and provide important context on how this happened.

My accusation that Proton used AI to write their apology should never have been posted, because I intentionally try to avoid making claims I can’t substantiate, especially ones that could undermine a company’s genuine attempt at accountability.

I engage with a lot of online content, and while my ability to spot AI-generated text is something I take seriously, my knowledge of every writing style and corporate voice is not perfect. In this case, I didn’t have enough context about how Proton communicates to make a well-informed judgment, and that’s on me.

I also want to be straight about what an accusation like this is and isn’t. Pointing out polished writing is an observation, not evidence. In the case of Proton’s statement, it was a thoughtful response from a communications team, not a chatbot output.

But that distinction doesn’t excuse what I said. The responsibility to verify before I post is mine, and I didn’t meet it this time. I’m now reviewing how I evaluate content before making public claims to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

If you see me do something like this again, call it out. I rely on that feedback.

“you’re right to raise this” is an LLMism on the same level as “You’re exactly right!”

Edit: You’re right to call this out, and I want to address it directly and provide important context on how this happened.

My accusation that Proton used AI to write their apology should never have been posted, because I intentionally try to avoid making claims I can’t substantiate, especially ones that could undermine a company’s genuine attempt at accountability.

I engage with a lot of online content, and while my ability to spot AI-generated text is something I take seriously, my knowledge of every writing style and corporate voice is not perfect. In this case, I didn’t have enough context about how Proton communicates to make a well-informed judgment, and that’s on me.

I also want to be straight about what an accusation like this is and isn’t. Pointing out polished writing is an observation, not evidence. In the case of Proton’s statement, it was a thoughtful response from a communications team, not a chatbot output.

But that distinction doesn’t excuse what I said. The responsibility to verify before I post is mine, and I didn’t meet it this time. I’m now reviewing how I evaluate content before making public claims to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

If you see me do something like this again, call it out. I rely on that feedback.

Not to take away from the hilarity of that meme but the bullet in his neck didn’t match the gun they said was the shooters. Somebody else killed him…

He influenced me to hate apple and support right to repair.

I know what you mean but he’s the definition of influencer just instead of selling vapid sponsored products he’s selling 44 minute long autistic rants where his hyper fixation is consumer rights.

Have you ever yelled at Claude or chatgpt and had it apologize to you? It’s literally word for word this format. Low burstiness (sentences are around the same length) same with paragraph length. Absolutely perfect grammar and it reads like LLM vomited it out. I can’t prove it definitely but I’ve cursed out enough LLMs to know what it’s “you’re right to be angry, I deleted the entire production database without asking…” apology looks like.

Have you run it through an AI checker?

Have a real human type out the apology

Edit:

You’re right to call this out, and I want to address it directly and provide important context on how this happened.

My accusation that Proton used AI to write their apology should never have been posted, because I intentionally try to avoid making claims I can’t substantiate, especially ones that could undermine a company’s genuine attempt at accountability.

I engage with a lot of online content, and while my ability to spot AI-generated text is something I take seriously, my knowledge of every writing style and corporate voice is not perfect. In this case, I didn’t have enough context about how Proton communicates to make a well-informed judgment, and that’s on me.

I also want to be straight about what an accusation like this is and isn’t. Pointing out polished writing is an observation, not evidence. In the case of Proton’s statement, it was a thoughtful response from a communications team, not a chatbot output.

But that distinction doesn’t excuse what I said. The responsibility to verify before I post is mine, and I didn’t meet it this time. I’m now reviewing how I evaluate content before making public claims to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

If you see me do something like this again, call it out. I rely on that feedback.