Isn't this just Substack? I don't think they allow too much styling - body and section fonts, header size, header image and icons, etc. Could be wrong.
EDIT: Oh the Jamverse website. Yes, agree 100% - apologies for missing at first.
Do you think "Race Inspired Cosmetic Enhancements" is the origin of "ricing" / "riced-out" or a backronym[1]?
Honest curiosity about language and language use.
In fairness and full disclosure: I have believed until now that the language comes from rice-burners and related, and I have never liked it. If I were still in communities that used it (unix desktop crowd), I might proactively steer newcomers towards your acronym as a kind of reclaiming.
> I might proactively steer newcomers towards your acronym as a kind of reclaiming.
Any negative connotations "rice burner" once had was lost when the term shifted towards referring to cars instead of humans. But now re-recognizing that the enhancements are inspired by the East Asian race turns the connotations back to humans. Isn't that a regression?
Yes, the term originated as derogatory slang towards the Asian population in the early 1900s, and its use towards them became especially popular during the Korean War. There is no question there. However, as before, the term evolved away from people and towards cars. You cannot be derogatory towards an inanimate object. It doesn't have a mechanism to internalize feedback. In that evolution, the term lost its derogatory connotations. The historical usage, while a part of our past, is used no more.
Reintroducing this to be something about a population's race reinstates the derogatoriness. You can be derogatory towards humans. Minimizing the cosmetic enhancements to be being inspired by the East Asian race and not valuable human achievement brings us right back to the same place we were when Japanese cars started being introduced into the North American market, diminishing the human contribution. It is a regression.
Rather than make another top-level comment, adding here that Kagi is a better experience for me than Google or DDG. Not perfect, and I wish they would lean even harder into pure search (they're also developing AI features), but still an improvement over alternatives.
Ah, I really walked into that one. Yeah, the phrasing + placement of the remark implied that all comments are artificial.
That was not my actual intent, it was poorly expressed by me. I was specifically talking about the account which created the comment colinhb responded to. That'd make it the... Grand Grand Grand grandparent now I think?
That's not necessary. Sometimes we make choices and we feel the need to justify them in vivid flamewars regardless of how arbitrary. Vi vs emacs or amd vs intel, now anthropic vs openai.
We love to take sides, to belong to a small community of peers, no?
I have spent about 6 hours with it now and it is absurd to say it worse than 4.8. It is wonderful.
To me, there is this strange critique that seems to always happen now with a new model. Like shitting on the model for entertainment purposes seems more interesting to many than actually using the model.
It reminds me of looking up a new music album on youtube that has very few views with a review above it by The Needle Drop shitting on the album will have a few hundred thousands views.
I would rather just listen to the album and judge for myself.
I don’t know that individuals can really be expected to use a new model enough to develop a proper opinion though. If I try a new model, and it doesn’t seem as good as the one I’m using, I’m just going to stop using it. That’s not enough data to give anyone else a useful view on it, but it’s enough for me to make my mind up.
Especially because I’m probably trying it at work, and I can’t really justify using the company’s enterprise plan to develop my understanding of a model that I don’t think is going to be the one I use for my work.
https://www.reddit.com/r/grok/s/dKSx4CbRkw