I’m not the person you’re responding to, but here’s one.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/flu-activity-continues-climb-us-11-million-cases/story?id=128891188

The percent of outpatient visits for respiratory illnesses are now at the highest rate on record.

About 8% of visits to a health care provider were labeled as flu-like illness, surpassing any levels seen since 1997, the earliest for which data is available.

Data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that influenza activity in North America remains relatively low but is increasing, driven mainly by detections of influenza A viruses.

I’m having a really hard time reconciling that quote with this one from yesterday.

The percent of outpatient visits for respiratory illnesses are now at the highest rate on record.

About 8% of visits to a health care provider were labeled as flu-like illness, surpassing any levels seen since 1997, the earliest for which data is available.

”remains relatively low” vs “highest rate on record” seem contradictory.

Distraction from the Epstein Files, … and oil.

deleted by creator

Insert [everything I don’t like is woke antisemitic] meme

“Damnit, Carter!”

as funny as the video looks

What part was funny?

Everyone knows that AI chatbots like ChatGPT, Grok, and Gemini can often hallucinate sources.

No, no, apparently not everyone, or this wouldn’t be a problem.

Still calm and unemotional here. How about you? Are you in a place now where you can admit you were wrong?

See, here’s the thing. It’s not just me that noticed. You repeatedly deflected and pivoted so naturally in this conversation, that I’m not even sure you realize you’re doing it until someone calls it out.

That tells me you do this on a regular basis, even with people close to you IRL. They notice. They don’t call you out to keep the peace, because they know how you’ll react. But they notice, and that means they don’t trust you.

Seeing someone pivot, deflect and double down when faced with evidence of being wrong only lowers their credibility in the eyes of others. It means they don’t follow the evidence and change their mind when appropriate. It means that they stubbornly cling to falsehoods in the face of evidence to the contrary. So, they’re probably frequently wrong about stuff and shouldn’t be trusted.

On the other hand, seeing them say,

Crap, you’re right! I totally thought it was X, but it’s really Z. Thank you! I learned something new today!

raises their credibility significantly in the eyes of others. It means that they do follow the evidence and change their mind when appropriate, and that means they’re likely usually mostly right about stuff, and therefore can be trusted.

As for the donor of the cybertrucks, your right, it wasn’t Elon Musk, even though I never said it was and you’ve repeatedly refused to address correcting me on a statement I didn’t make.

However, it also wasn’t the owner of UP FIT, which you’ve repeatedly claimed that it was without evidence. When it was pointed out that the article didn’t support your claim, as you said it did, you pivoted and deflected, instead of simply saying, “Damn! You’re right. I completely misread that.”

So, allow me to help. According to The Guardian , it was Ben Horowitz.

The mysterious donor turned out to be Ben Horowitz, co-founder of the Silicon Valley venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, and his wife Felicia Horowitz. They came forward just days after McMahill posted the renderings on social media. Horowitz’s firm, one of the best-known in Silicon Valley, invests in a variety of tech companies and spent $400m to help Musk take over Twitter in 2022.

Lastly, I’d just like to say that, had you owned up to correcting me for saying something I hadn’t said at the start, I totally would have just taken your word for it about who the donor was. I would have had no reason to think that you were wrong about that. It was completely believable. Why would I question that?

It was only after you kept pivoting away from that first point that I started to question the rest of what you said. And that’s how it works. When you catch someone refusing to admit they’re wrong about one thing, you start to doubt everything they say.

Have a great week. I wish you the best.

I’m perfectly calm. I’m not the one caught spreading misinformation.

You however seem to have serious reading comprehension skills and an inability to admit when you’re wrong. I’ve given you multiple opportunities to simply say something like,

Whoops. I thought I was replying to a different comment. My bad.

with regard to you bringing muskrat into the conversation. You took none of them, presumably because admitting you made a mistake is outside your skill set.

Then I gave you the opportunity to show me exactly where in the article it backs up your claim of who the source of the donation was. I was, and still am, perfectly willing to accept that I overlooked that part. You can still point it out and I’ll happily accept it.

But instead of simply copyingdand pasting the sentence from the article that backs up your claim, and being done with it, or simply acting like an adult and admitting you misunderstood the article, and being done with it, you sidestep the whole thing and childishly tell me to calm down.

I don’t care who donated the money. That was never my point.

What I do care about is people spreading misinformation, and right now, that’s you.

Where? All I see is,

The founder of UP FIT, the company that modified the Las Vegas police Cybertrucks, posted a hype video on Twitter showing off the work

That doesn’t mean that they’re the source of the money that paid for the trucks.

And you still have not addressed the fact that 👏I 👏did 👏not 👏say 👏it 👏was 👏muskrat.

ETA: The company is only mentioned three times in the article. The quote above, plus

According to the UP FIT Founder, the Las Vegas PD Cybertruck Doors Are Factory Stock

and

If the Las Vegas Sheriff and even the UP FIT founder thinks that Cybertrucks can stop bullets by default, there’s a reason for that.

So, no, it absolutely does NOT say

they were donated by UP.FIT.

No, you were telling me, a person that didn’t imply that it was muskrat, that it wasn’t muskrat. Then you make an unsubstantiated claim of who it was. The linked article doesn’t say he donated them. You didn’t provide any evidence for your claim beyond an implied, “Trust me bro.” So my perfectly reasonable conclusion is that you misread the article in the same way you misread my original comment.

So? Why are you telling me? I didn’t say it was muskrat. Nobody mentioned him in this thread until after I posted.

Hey now. That’s not necessary. Satan is actually pretty chill.

It’s also meaningless without the context of how many particles other people consume.

She found that people ingest an average of 39,000 to 52,000 microplastic particles per year from food and drinking water, and those who use bottled water on a daily basis ingest nearly 90,000 more microplastic particles into their bodies.

Aha! So, now a more informative headline could be something like, “People Who Drink Bottled Water on a Daily Basis Ingest 3 Times as Many Microplastic Particles Each Year.”

Which I would argue is also far scarier than just some out of context bigish number.

But, I’m with you on ditching “particles” altogether and providing it in a standard measurement.

https://archive.ph/CJECh

Barbaric that this needs to be a law.

They’re talking about the files Anna’s archive is torrenting.

I think you’re looking for this page.

these platforms will have to display warnings “when a young user initially uses the predatory feature and periodically thereafter.”

Predatory features should not come with a warning for young users. They should be banned for everyone.