It was a neat Warcraft 3 custom map.

Then it got weird.

Kind of. It isn’t wrong, but it is a crucial omission that it’s interviewing a former EPA enforcement guy (i.e. not current) about current enforcement policy, (which is radically changing under Zeldin.) So the model’s interpretation on whether the state will hold to federal pressure becomes imprecise since it’s really this guy stating there’s actually a lack of federal pressure.

But it does rightfully note information is not in the article to answer, which is neat.

Because… for context not directly in the article, technically if EPA defers to the state, then Mississippi saying temporary permit exemption actually applies here satisfies the permit requirement, which Buckheit has to know. (Which directly explains the lack of federal pressure.) Citing the policy in January was a clever non-answer from the EPA. They’re actually saying state and federal policies are NOT in conflict.

Also, I’m not trying to dismiss any of this, more trying to provide an insight that might help with accuracy. I have a bit of knowledge on this specific subject, so I thought I’d note a point where I can measure an inaccuracy.

These kinda of articles can be really sneaky about claims and statements. Mostly minor and innocuous, but an LLM doesn’t know the difference. Like, this caught that Buckheit is talking about what should be happening under previous admins when he was involved, but that’s specifically not what the EPA is doing anymore, which the LLM appears to have missed in part. Which to me, that part was the primary purpose of the article.

“List the article’s concrete claims about permit status and turbine operations, each with support.”

• EPA position: these turbines require permits under the Clean Air Act.

Not quite though. The article cited EPA’s policy as per a former EPA enforcement staffer who was explicitly stating the EPA is not requiring that here and has made rules deferring to the state and local authorities. The guy was saying the EPA should be acting, but isn’t. The article was clever with it, but that’s all the more reason.

Neat! I am glad to have helped connect some dots! Your description fired some neurons and I had to think back to a Halloween party in maybe 1993 or so.

Shot in the dark here: “The Willies”. It’s kids telling horror stories and there’s one story about a bully killing monster “Bad Apples” is the story.

Really young Sean Astin.

Edit: found a trailer, excuse the youtube.

https://youtu.be/yT6lRRuMZyQ

Out of curiosity, was the monster humanoid and it dragged a teacher into the ceiling?

The best single pizza was a pepperoni pizza from a street vendor in Hawaii many years ago, with hot sauce I still special order from the islands.

However… if we’re just talling toppings a pineapple, peppercini pizza is my dark horse favorite pizzas. I first tried essentially on a bet. Never would’ve expected it to be so good, and have since determined it’s best (optionally) with chicken, feta, and/or roasted garlic.

Reminds me of the Palladium monk occupation. Strictly about dodging and the point was monks did NOT attack or fight. Striking an opponent meant being defrocked and losing monk status. I thought it was a neat take (and a direct response to the DnD monk trope.)

Pure dialogue and skill class. Never got a Palladium campaign really going though. Just a sea of worldbuilding.

I don’t really know 5e very well, nor PF, but monks were always kind of an awkward fit in 3.5 too. From what I understand the redesign put then closer to an old 3.5 prestige class with the ki strikes and such.

The meat of the class that I think is valuable is a martial that’s survivability is in dodging and whose offensive loop is to set up and exploit vulnerability each turn, whether it’s by buffing themselves or debuffing their enemy.

sad monk class sounds

But seriously, I always felt archetype of light armor being the ‘stealth’ armor class was silly. Sure, less penalty than chains and plates, but still.

Part of this I believe can be attributed to labelling rules. Only the concentrate portion can be called juice.

When it is made from concentrate the reconstituting water is the main ingredient. What’s shitty is that water gets more and more sugar/HFCS mixed in so less concentrate is used. Getting it down to 10% or less like that: it’s just flavoring the corn.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jJxMpTeEf8Q&pp=ygUXZmlmdGggZWxlbWVudCBidWcgc21hc2g%3D

Not necessarily puppet accounts, just brigading in general.

It’s the rationale many instances used to defederate hexbear. (Even though iirc hexbear disables downvotes, so they’re defederated for users mass posting, usually that hogshit image, instead of mass voting.) It wasn’t puppets or bot accounts at any rate.

But then there’s repost communities where users share comments (especially in places they or their audience is banned from) or DMs for a group response.

Not to mention the whole ‘block and downvote all .ml on sight’ mentality. But hopefully that might be something this tool could catch.

I guess I approach it inversely. I encounter what looks like a troll post and I’ll only check profiles when either I am interacting with them, or there’s such deep downvoting already I’m just doing a morbid dive into someone’s history.

Most of the time though the user just has a deeply downvoted argument but otherwise normal and/or low engagement posts, so they wouldn’t be flagged by this.

So I understand that it can save some time with some niche cases.

But I can’t help but note that the system seems intentionally blind to targeted harassment, which can be a source, if not cause, of bad faith accounts. (And likely those need different approaches since those are also niche cases themselves.)

And maybe it’s all just because of my instance’s Local feed, so that’s what I see as a prominent problem on Lemmy.

On one hand it probably should just be fire damage, but I also like the idea that radiant damage type is just radiation.

That’s an interesting example of a user this is designed for/around.

The general system of up/downvotes seems to be doing its job quite as intended: their views appear routinely unpopular and there’s a seemingly pretty strong community consensus around that.

It looks like their threads have comments that solidly and clearly refute the garbage manosphere stuff. For some people it’s the opportunity to express a refutation of it publicly and directly. The public viewer gets to read those responses too.

So with that example: what do the flags do that the content of their posts don’t already communicate?

Are you saying that because they would get more upvotes, they could offset the downvotes they receive? Potentially, but this is where the second metric comes in (giving a lot of downvotes), and as we said, the two are almost always present at the same time.

Right, though it’s a mitigating factor. I guess there’s something I don’t know about piefed: Lemmy comments all have a default upvote from the user that makes it. But it can be revoked by the user. Does Piefed work the same way? My thought only applies if that’s the case.

giving a lot of downvotes is usually a sign of toxicity

Emphasis mine. When is it not a sign of toxicity? Rules are defined by their exceptions, so I am curious as to how this exception is navigated, if at all?

Essentially someone who posts with high frequency has a capacity to issue more downvotes without compromising this admittedly imperfect tool.

Now I was never really a reddit user, but the problematic karma farming of accounts associated with that place was directly linked to these kinds of tools and metrics, no?

I have felt there needed to be a specific type of vote available only to the original poster and to the users individual reply.

An up/downvote from the OP or the user I responded to I think should be differentiated from another user who isn’t either.

If the OP or commentator votes that should be noted alongside the X number of random votes. It isn’t an anonymous vote, but those votes would be public acknowledgements tied to the user making the public post/comment.