I've always assumed that committed conspiracy theorists are just trolls rolling with it (because nobody could be so stupid as to actually believe in the conspiracy's premise). So no amount of evidence is going to "convince" them, because they already know the truth, and don't care.
But then perhaps over time, they somehow attracted people who genuinely are that stupid, and uncritically believe? That demographic is obviously going to be too stupid to critically assess any new evidence either.
Do you think the same way about religious believers? This is a rhetorical question to help you understand why people hold false beliefs. Of course Mohammed wasn't really the messenger of God, but it's a popular false belief for some reason that isn't stupidity or trolling.
Plenty (most?) of the people you interact with every day primarily form their worldview based on what feels good emotionally. It's not a matter of stupidity, plenty of smart people delude themselves into thinking easily falsifiable things.
> According to Germany's Criminal Code, defamation statutes apply when someone knowingly asserts or disseminates untrue statements about another person
It seems more likely to be under the Insult clause of that statute:
> Insult (§185 StGB): Covers disrespectful, demeaning, or contemptuous statements made to or about someone, including public insults.
Politicians literally have their own paragraph with insane protections, it's §188. You don't ever want to say something negative about a politicians in Germany. The police will kick in your door within days.
The tweet cited by the article says that the charge investigated was “insult”. There may have been a multistep misunderstanding here, because they seem to have found information (elsewhere, not in the cited tweet), and in loose discussion the “insult” section is within what is broadly described as “defamation laws”, though it is not the specific offense of “intentional defamation” (Section 187) nor is it roughly within the scope of “defamation” as that term is usually used in English (as both “intentional defamation” and the separate offense of “malicious gossip” [Section 186] would be), but its the closest broad category of law with a common name in English.
LLMs use the em-dash excessively but correctly. This post is littered with them in places they don't belong which makes it look decidedly human, as if written by someone who believes that random em-dashes make their writing look more professional, while actually having the opposite effect.
Actually, there are a bunch of other variables (energy density, stability, discharge current, etc. etc.), so the probability of a technology that improves one significantly without negatively affecting at least one other is vanishingly small. Hence the number of overhyped battery technologies that get reported but never productised.
They claim not only fast charging, long life and low cost, but also very high energy density, no degradation in low temperature, no thermal runaway, non-hazardous materials and no "geopolitical" needed.
Going even further off topic, one of the things I love with Apple is having all your subscriptions in one place, and being able to cancel them easily.
The few zombie subscriptions I've had have all existed outside of the App store, one that I didn't even sign up for (looking at you Masterclass). I bought a one year gift subscription for someone else, and because it came with a "free" subscription for me (that I didn't use), I git hit with annual renewals until I noticed it on my credit card statement and cancelled.
Yes, I should check those more frequently, but who has time for that?
It rankles that you can can cancel a free trial before it's over with every app exept Apple's. I like the feature, but the double standard grates.
I'm amused but not entirely surprised to see that live video production hasn't meaningfully progressed since I was involved 30+ years ago.
Yes, the technology has evolved – digital vs analog (partly – for example analog comms here because digital (optical) "isn't redundant" (lol, what?)); higher resolution; digital overlays and effects, etc. But the basic process of a bunch of humans winging it and yelling to each other hasn't changed at all.
This is an industry ripe for massive disruption, and the first to do it will win big.
But then perhaps over time, they somehow attracted people who genuinely are that stupid, and uncritically believe? That demographic is obviously going to be too stupid to critically assess any new evidence either.
reply