Eh, it was reported about the normal amount imo. With the violent lone-wolf types, sometimes media under-reports it to reduce copycat actions (see the famous Newswipe clip).

I’m aware of at least two posts about it from the ABC (national broadcaster)[1][2] and one from local news[3] (paywalled, mirrored here), though admittedly this one has a very local-news angle on it.

Most significantly, the manifesto favorably references Brenton Tarrant, the Australian-born terrorist who in March 2019 murdered 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. Patten describes himself as having become fascinated by Tarrant’s actions.

There would appear to be copycat elements.

Yeah, hence some under-reporting of the details. There’s some fair discussion about reporting / commentary on recent protests there but I don’t personally think the comparison to this incident seems fair.

??? Why the hell did my link get turned into a link back to Fedia lmao

Cool idea, though I was surprised by the level of fidelity loss in the fountain example. I would’ve expected that to be a good case scenario for noise cancellation so maybe it just needs some more time to iterate and improve on its level of “false positive” removal.

SO comments are already CC-BY licensed (granted not -NC licensed, but still), but it doesn’t seem to have helped much.

It’s normally negative, yeah, hence the “reverse review bombing” implying that they’re positive reviews.

I’m not sure it qualifies as “reverse review bombing” if the recent review +/- percentage matches the all-time percentage. There’s just more reviews because of the shutdown, the ratio of positive vs negative hasn’t meaningfully changed (97% positive overall, 97% positive recently).

My quote is not the only content of the video; I’ve just included most of the introduction. The 13:23 long video has the following chapter markers:

00:00 Introduction 00:50 How was DOOM originally described? 02:20 DOOM clones 04:33 Quake Killers 6:06 A hypothetical question 12:05 Conclusion

Only the first half of the video is accurately described by your suggested title. The video as a whole is described by the existing title with reasonable accuracy. It’s not a bait-and-switch: the video also discusses what genre DOOM is, not only what genre DOOM was.

It seems that you (and many others) have used a heuristic of “clickbait-y sounding titles don’t accurately describe the contents of videos” and left corresponding comments. Although often accurate, that heuristic has failed in this instance.

Then let’s transcribe part of the opening:

I know what you’re thinking – it’s a stupid question, it’s an FPS. It’s the definitive FPS. And it’s a fair point. DOOM ticks all the boxes required for a reasonable definition of a first person shooter. It’s presented from a first-person perspective, and shooting the bad guys is a key part of it. But the FPS genre didn’t exist when DOOM was released. The term “first person shooter” wasn’t common until a few years later.

So what genre was DOOM? How was it originally described?

Edit I’ve now understood that quoting most of the video’s opening salvo has unfortunately misrepresented the video’s contents to the people who are still trying to leave comments without actually watching it. It’s a video about what DOOM’s genre is and what DOOM’s genre was, not only the latter. The title looks clickbait-y but is honestly pretty accurate regarding the subject of the video.

But the winky face shows how serious they’re being!?

Maybe the title was changed post-publication?

That is indeed the very first criteria listed in the sidebar, despite you being showered in downvotes for saying it.

It does absolutely flood the feeds of some subscribed users when you post 40 (!!) things in one go to a single place. Would you be willing to consider either submitting in batches or spreading some submissions into more targeted communities? While I admire your dedication (and of course don’t speak for everyone about preferences), I find this amount of stuff from a single sub/comm/mag at once really undesirable because in the aftermath it temporarily turns most of my subscription feed into just that and not much else.

Well I think you meant to reply to the other commenter, but in any case what you said included:

instead fix the rest of the shit weapons?! Making everything equally garbage does not solve the problem.

And it sounds like they’re already trying to do this with the buffs (though again: I don’t own the game). It’s the first balance patch - I assume (and hope) that the situation will continue to improve with further updates similar to Helldivers 1 and its many patches.

Patch notes have 3 weapons/stratagems getting nerfed vs 5 weapons/stratagems getting buffed. I don’t own the game but it sounds like they’re already hitting it from both sides? If they do nothing but buffs there’s a huge risk of just powercreeping everything.

https://frameable.com/company/tech/why-we-prefer-notification-sounds-instead-of-a-human-voice

Excluding Piledriver (?) to Zen, wouldn’t 30% be the highest inter-generational IPC increase in Intel/AMD CPUs in at least 15 years? The article’s original title also included quotes around “ABSURD”, as the term is being re-used from the source’s clickbait YouTube title lol.

“Open source AI” is apparently the answer.

P.s. you have your markdown reversed with the links - the text needs to be in the square brackets with the link in the parentheses. [text](https://example.com)

Archive Options Failing

This one worked for me, useful if wanting to share the story elsewhere:

https://archive.is/20231224184755/https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/sam-altman-openai-protected-by-silicon-valley-friends-f3efcf68

Submitted for good faith discussion: Substack shouldn’t decide what we read. The reason it caught my attention is that it’s co-signed by Edward Snowden and Richard Dawkins, who evidently both have blogs there I never knew about.

I’m not sure how many of the people who decide to comment on these stories actually read up about them first, but I did, such as by actually reading the Atlantic article linked. I would personally feel very uncomfortable about voluntarily sharing a space with someone who unironically writes a post called “Vaccines Are Jew Witchcraftery”. However, the Atlantic article also notes:

Experts on extremist communication, such Whitney Phillips, the University of Oregon journalism professor, caution that simply banning hate groups from a platform—even if sometimes necessary from a business standpoint—can end up redounding to the extremists’ benefit by making them seem like victims of an overweening censorship regime. “It feeds into this narrative of liberal censorship of conservatives,” Phillips told me, “even if the views in question are really extreme.”

Structurally this is where a comment would usually have a conclusion to reinforce a position, but I don’t personally know what I support doing here.