https://bannedbyanthropic.com/

I believe the word is capricious. Everything cloud based is at the whim of someone else.

There are ways to mitigate against that, but ultimately if it’s not yours…it’s not yours.

No.

Clankers were trained on the writing style of individuals such as myself (ASD). While I do consciously (and subconsciously) code switch, I’m aware I have a default “sounds like ChatGPT” voice when dealing with technical discussions, especially if I’m trying to be precise or guard myself from accusation or attack.

I’m ok with it, but I’m now going to autism at you / over explain it, partially because I think it might help you parse the difference between human and machine when reading these things.

You asked in apparently good faith and you deserve a full explanation.

The underlying pattern comes from a perversion of the “measure twice, cut once” mentality; I create the crux of the argument, forecast likely objections, rewrite to close off said objections, sand the edges off, check if I was unintentionally offensive, check if I presented the facts to the best of my ability, check for logical fallacies, then finally sweep to see if there is any ambiguity or obvious attack surfaces left. Then I read it out loud to myself.

That mode flattens everything into a “safe, palatable, high signal to noise ratio, use dot points so people don’t lose you, don’t write like yourself” style.

(And I still miss typos sometimes. That actually really, really irks me).

Anyhow, when I said the clankers copy us, I didn’t mean just vocabulary. Expand the CoT (chain of thought) the next time you use ChatGPT; you’ll see they made it do this exact same process.

PS: You’re not the first to point it out either. It’s one of the reasons I dubbed my blog Clanker Adjacent

Three replies deep and you’ve been wrong every single time. Confused Elite with Elite Dangerous. Invented a claim nobody made. Moved the goalposts thrice. Failed to comprehend both jokes and basic geometry.

And now that you’ve run out of thread to misread, you’re resorting to ad hominems and hoping nobody scrolls up.

They will.

How about you reread the thread instead, see that it’s about accurately reproducing existing stars, and realize that you indeed have a comprehension problem.

The sub-thread is about the minimum storage to hold a 3D model per star. Starman defined a 2-byte tetrahedron and multiplied. That’s storage math, not astrophysical reproduction.

Nobody at any point said “accurately reproducing existing stars.”

Procedural generation is relevant because it’s the canonical example of compressing astronomical-scale data into almost nothing - which is what Braben did in 1984, on the machine I cited, which you initially corrected me on incorrectly.

You’ve now moved the goalposts twice: first from Elite to Elite Dangerous, now from “minimal storage per model” to “accurately reproducing existing stars.”

At some point it’s easier for you to just re-read the thread than to keep inventing new arguments to lose.

Go away.

Champ, re-read the thread. The comment was a joke - “in a cave, with a box of scraps” is a meme. The point was that Braben demonstrated procedural generation compresses galaxy-scale data into almost nothing, which is directly relevant to starman’s napkin math about storage per star. Nobody claimed a seed perfectly reproduces the real Milky Way. You invented that claim and then dunked on it.

Also, you confidently told me Elite Dangerous was from 2014 when I was clearly citing Elite (1984) and Elite Dangerous (2014).

Maybe ease off the “can’t comprehend” akshually.

Elite is from 1984. Per the wiki I cited

“…The Elite universe contains eight galaxies, each with 256 planets to explore. Due to the limited capabilities of 8-bit computers, these worlds are procedurally generated. A single seed number is run through a fixed algorithm the appropriate number of times and creates a sequence of numbers determining each planet’s complete composition (position in the galaxy, prices of commodities, and name and local details; text strings are chosen numerically from a lookup table and assembled to produce unique descriptions, such as a planet with “carnivorous arts graduates”). This means that no extra memory is needed to store the characteristics of each planet, yet each is unique and has fixed properties. Each galaxy is also procedurally generated from the first. Braben and Bell at first intended to have 248 galaxies, but Acornsoft insisted on a smaller universe to hide the galaxies’ mathematical origins.[36]”

Elite Dangerous expands on this mechanic, per cited article.

"Of course, David Braben and his team didn’t dot their virtual galaxy manually with all those star systems, they used procedural generation. But there’s absolutely more to it, Braben explained when we recently sat down with him in San Francisco.

“I think it is a distraction when you start describing it as ‘we generated our galaxy procedurally’. It belittles the fact that we actually put a lot of artistic work in it and gathered real data.

We have a one-to-one scale model of the milky way in our game, with all the 400 billion star systems. What we’ve done is we got real data from 160,000 star systems. That’s every single star in the night sky. About 7,000 are visible to the human eye and a lot more with a telescope. These are all in the game. And all the nebulae and things like that.

Now, beyond 30 or 40 light-years from Earth, even Hubble can’t resolve the smallest stars. So, the most common star we know about is a Class M Red-star, and beyond those 30 to 40 light-years, Hubble can’t see them. But you CAN see them as a sort of smoke, you just can’t see individual stars.

And I’m sure in our lifetime, we’ll see further and further with better telescopes. But the point is, we can populate that smoke with stars –with the right sort of mix of stars as well as the density. Because we know how much radiation is coming out of that smoke. And that’s the sort of approach we have taken.

Using procedural generation to create that smoke, in much the same way an artist uses an air brush or computer. The artists doesn’t mind where the individual dots come, what he’s doing, is getting the pattern of the smoke right, or whatever it is he’s drawing with the air brush."

Thats a big old chonkster. Nice :)

But…you risk mortal peril and calamity uttering the s word around your NAS.

Best to assume Schrödinger NAS: both stable and unstable until you look at it. Don’t look at it :)

David Braben did it 1984, in a cave, with a box of scraps

https://ctrl500.com/tech/how-frontier-managed-to-re-create-our-entire-galaxy-in-elite-dangerous/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_(video_game)

^ exactly that.

Also, I suspect that’s the reason for Claude famously telling everyone to “go to bed” all the time. That bastich cannot run time and date as a background check reliably…it wings it based on start of conversation. Bitch I type a lot and fast…stop tellling me to go to bed at 9pm.

I expect it will get patched soon.

An endearing quirk…but it exposes the wiring if you know. Still, doesn’t make the trick any less impressive when it hits.

I get where you’re coming from, but the issue isn’t that YouTube makes money, it’s how aggressively they’re doing it simultaneously.

• Charge advertisers? Fair enough.
• Charge viewers a Premium fee to avoid ads? …ok.
• Quietly tighten the screws on ad-blockers while doing both? That’s where it gets cynical.

The platform runs on creator content, yet payout rates, especially for smaller channels, have barely moved while YouTube’s revenue keeps growing. They’re squeezing every side of the equation at once while the people actually making the product worth watching see the least of it.

Ad-blocking isn’t theft. It’s a rational response to a platform that’s decided unskippable ads are acceptable on top of an already profitable model. If the value exchange felt fair, fewer people would bother. Early days of streaming showed that people accept a fair deal. Enshittification has driven many of us back to the seven seas.

Izzat anything like FreeBSD?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/amirhusain/2026/04/01/ai-just-hacked-one-of-the-worlds-most-secure-operating-systems/

Why ewww?

Hey YouTube? The endpoint of enshittification is this: I wipe my ass and flush you.

Keep going, YouTube. You’re not so important that we can’t just leave.

Nebula exists. Curiosity Stream exists. PeerTube exists. Odysee exits. The people I value on YT already have footholds on all four. More will arrive soon enough.

So keep at it.

Keep injecting unskippable ads, flooding the feed with AI slop, letting bots post porn, demonetising and hiding quality content, using DMCA like a digital SLAPP against content creators, and using the algorithm to warp reality.

Your value proposition is ubiquity. That’s it. That’s all you have. Without popular buy-in, you’re dead.

We proles? We have something better than loyalty.

We have spite.

So keep pissing people off - because watching you die on a very stupid hill of your own design will be entertaining AF.

For everyone else, see you on [email protected] and [email protected]. Come and learn how you can replace all of these pieces of shit.

And in the meantime - yt-dlp should still work to download what you actually want to keep, and SmartTube is black magic incarnate.