Icon.pic

@heyshrutimishra I'm surprised that this is a revelation to you.

@F1NN5TER The most beautiful redbull advertisement🫶

least feminine energy drink enjoyer

Software engineers in 2020: We're irreplaceable. Software engineers in 2023: AI can't handle complex code. Software engineers in 2025: Okay it's good but still needs supervision. Software engineers in 2026: Claude, fix this bug please. Software engineers in 2028: ????

@Gingeramyashley Цинично, но справедливо

Vrouwen geven niets om de worstelingen die mannen doormaken, ze staan bij de finish te wachten en neuken de winnaars

@hiimadvil x.com/i/status/20617…

Out of curiosity, I removed the 🏳️‍⚧️ flag from my name when making a few posts. Magically these posts didn’t get any pathetic transphobic comments.. anyway have a lovely morning everyone ♥️ time for breakfast 😋

@elonmusk @IterIntellectus One word: ITER

@IterIntellectus Harnessing even a millionth of the Sun’s power, which is extremely difficult, results in an economic value far more than a million times than that of Earth’s current entire economy

if SpaceX follows the same trajectory post IPO, in 16 years it will be worth $2 QUADRILLIONS

Обратная история — когда человек всю жизнь рвет жопу, но не может вырваться из бедности. Гуру мотивашек из Поп-психологии скажут: «у него мышление бедняка, он сам так решил». Как клиницист я скажу: идите на хер! Когда человек годами не живет, а старается не сдохнуть в режиме финансового выживания, кортизол затапливает мозг. Возникает эффект тоннельного зрения: психика бросает все ресурсы на то, чтобы дожить до пятницы, прокормить семью и закрыть кредит. У мозга буквально нет энергии, сил и возможности на то, чтобы выстроить стратегию на пять лет вперед. Человек херачит 24/7 не для того, чтобы вырасти личностно, карьерно и финансово, а для того, чтобы к чертям не пойти ко дну. Требовать от него «просто мыслить "правильно", "по-богатому"» — это как просить тонущего расслабиться и получать удовольствие от утопления, думая о высоком. Тут есть и второй слой, помимо биохимии. На постсоветском пространстве «генетическая память» (в смысле укоренившихся социальных стереотипов) работает достаточно жестко. Выделяться — страшно. Быть богатым — значит стать мишенью, потерять «своих», стать не таким как все. И психика блестяще защищает человека от этого страха: она заставляет его бессознательно выбирать самую тяжелую работу с самым низким КПД. Человек рвет жилы, страдает, но остается в безопасности привычного дефицита. Потому что «мы бедные, но честные», а с трудов праведных не наживешь палат каменных. Таким образом, страдание в нашей культуре легитимизирует твое право на существование внутри группы. Отсюда третий слой — самый коварный. Существует огромная разница между «рвать жопу» и «делать то, что приносит результат». Многие застряли в беличьем колесе не потому, что мало работают, а потому что у них стоит внутренний запрет на то, чтобы делать свою жизнь легкой и комфортной сверх определенного приемлемого для них уровня. Они искренне верят, что деньги и право на жизнь можно только выстрадать через пот и кровь. Если задача решается очень быстро и легко — им за нее стыдно брать нормальные деньги. Поэтому они бессознательно усложняют процессы, берут самых сложных клиентов, работают по 14 часов и к вечеру чувствуют себя «заслужившими». Однако кредитка всё равно в минусах, а до зарплаты еще две недели. Психотерапия здесь — не про «открытие денежного потока» и не про аффирмации перед зеркалом для вызова денег из вселенной. Даже не про групповые чтения «Богатый папа — бедный папа» (или как там эта хрень называется?). Это про то, как разрешить себе перестать быть ломовой лошадью и обнаружить, что твой труд ценен сам по себе, а не только когда ты приползаешь домой полумертвым. А раз труд имеет ценность, то за него можно брать и достойную цену.

J.R. Tolkien and Adolf Hitler fought against each other at the Battle of the Somma in 1916. Live now with this information.

@DrClownPhD Вы устарели в своем понимании, при всем уважении. Эта девушка счастлива и она настоящая. Вы знаете этот факт исключительно благодаря развитию информационных технологий.

My heart goes out to Elon Musk when I see this. As a father, I try to imagine one of my sons taking photos like this, struggling with mental health issues and believing he is a girl. That thought breaks my heart. I can’t imagine the pain of watching your own son disappear into this. My heart is with you. 🫶

@heynavtoor При всем уважении - вы охуели, честно Все эту ебанную обвязку написать - неделя Вы рекламируйте возможность запуска личного решения на железе стоимостью охулиард долларов!!! Блять, пишите "купи за 100к долларов железа и используй локально ИИ", проклятые журналисты или кто там вы

A YouTuber with 110 million subscribers released a free version of ChatGPT. His name is Felix Kjellberg. You know him as PewDiePie. He spent his own money on a 10-GPU computer at home. He used it to run the same kind of AI models that power ChatGPT, but on his own hardware. Then he wrote his own app to chat with them, because the apps that already exist were not good enough. Then he gave it away for free. Anyone can download it. Anyone can change it. Anyone can run it. It's called Odysseus. It runs on your computer. Your data stays on your disk. No account. No tracking. No monthly fee. What you get: - A chat window like ChatGPT - An AI assistant that can browse the web, read your files, and do tasks for you - A tool that scans your computer and tells you which AI models will work on it - A research mode that reads many websites and writes you a report - A side-by-side mode to test two AI models on the same question - A writing editor where AI helps you, instead of writing for you - Memory, so the AI remembers your past chats - Email with AI that sorts your inbox and writes replies for you - Notes, a to-do list, and a calendar - Works on your phone too 23,612 stars on GitHub in 2 days. Top of trending all weekend. ChatGPT Plus costs $20 a month. Claude Pro costs $20 a month. PewDiePie's version costs nothing, runs on your own computer, and the code is open for anyone to read. This is what AI looked like before the subscription model. (Link in the comments)

@CravyOks Удобно, закрыли комментарии в посте ниже про осуждение использования нейросеток. Выскажу тут - откажитесь от интернета, электричества, и горячей воды..

расскажите, чем вы оскорбили пользователей твитера сегодня? не может быть, чтобы только я оскорбила пользователей ИИ, запретив им сдавать по работе нейрослоп

@otakara18 Сон при температуре 40 градусов

これめちゃくちゃ怖い......

A Dutch computer scientist gave one lecture in 1988 arguing that programming is unlike anything humans have ever tried to do before, and the reason most software on earth is broken is that we are still teaching it as if it were a hobby. His name was Edsger Dijkstra. He won the Turing Award in 1972. He invented the shortest path algorithm that every GPS on earth still runs on. He wrote the paper that killed the goto statement in modern programming languages. He spent 50 years quietly being one of the most consequential thinkers in the entire history of computer science, and he was in a very bad mood by the time he stood up at the ACM Computer Science Conference in 1988 to deliver the lecture that almost nobody at the conference wanted to hear. The lecture was called On the Cruelty of Really Teaching Computer Science. It is now one of the most cited papers in the entire history of computing education. It was filed in his archive as EWD1036, handwritten in his careful fountain-pen calligraphy because he refused to use a typewriter and famously refused to use email for the rest of his life. The argument was simple and uncomfortable. Programming, Dijkstra said, is a radical novelty. Not a new tool. Not a new skill. Not a faster version of something humans already knew how to do. A genuinely new category of intellectual activity that has no real precedent in the entire history of the human species, and our brains have not been built to handle it. Here is what he meant by that. When a programmer writes a line of high-level code and presses run, that single line might trigger a billion operations at the level of the silicon. The ratio between the abstraction you are working in and the physical events you are actually causing is roughly one billion to one. No engineer in history before computing ever had to reason about a system spanning that kind of ratio inside their own head. A bridge builder reasons about steel beams and the physics of weight. A surgeon reasons about organs and the physics of tissue. A chemist reasons about molecules and the physics of bonds. All of them are working inside ratios of physical scale where the largest and smallest things they need to think about are within a few orders of magnitude of each other. A programmer routinely writes one line that orchestrates a billion physical events on a chip, and is expected to predict the behavior of all of them in advance. Dijkstra argued that the human brain was simply not built for this. Every intuition we have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years comes from a world of medium-sized objects behaving in continuous ways. Computing is the opposite. It is discrete, not continuous. A program that runs perfectly a billion times can crash on the billion-and-first iteration because of a single bit. A single character missing from a line of code can take down a power grid. There is no margin. There is no graceful degradation. The system either works or does not, and the only way to know is to actually run it. This was the part of the lecture where Dijkstra made everyone in the room uncomfortable. He said the way computer science was being taught in universities was a quiet disaster. Professors were teaching programming the way carpenters teach woodworking. With examples. With metaphors. With analogies to things students already understood. Files are like folders. Memory is like a desk. A function is like a recipe. Dijkstra said this was actively making it harder for students to think clearly. The whole point of a radical novelty is that there is nothing in your past experience to compare it to. The moment you start reaching for metaphors, you are smuggling in old intuitions that do not apply, and those intuitions will betray you the first time you try to reason about a system the metaphor was not built to describe. His exact line was this: the usual way in which we plan today for tomorrow is in yesterday's vocabulary. And yesterday's vocabulary, he argued, was killing the field. The reason most software is broken is downstream of this single misunderstanding. Programmers are taught to think of code as a craft. Something you get a feel for. Something you pick up through practice. Something where intuition gets sharper with experience. Dijkstra said this is exactly backwards. Programming is not a craft. It is closer to mathematics than to carpentry, and the moment you treat it as a craft, you guarantee that the software you produce will be full of the kind of bugs that craftsmanship cannot catch. The fix, in his view, was to teach programming the way mathematics is taught. You should be able to prove your program correct before you run it. You should reason about your code formally, the way a mathematician reasons about a theorem, not the way a carpenter feels their way through a joint. The students who learned this way, he said, would walk out of their classes with a kind of confidence that no amount of typing practice could produce. The lecture was published in Communications of the ACM in 1989. The field did not listen. Universities kept teaching programming the same way. Software kept getting bigger. Bugs kept compounding. By 2026, almost every piece of software on earth has known security vulnerabilities, undefined behaviors, and edge cases that nobody has ever proven safe. The doom that Dijkstra warned about in 1988 is now the default condition of the digital world we have built. The deeper lesson is the one most readers miss the first time through. Dijkstra was not just talking about software. He was making a much bigger point about how humans learn anything that is genuinely new. The instinct to translate the unfamiliar into the familiar is the most natural thing in the world. It is also the single biggest obstacle to actually understanding something that has no precedent. If you keep reaching for analogies, you will never see the new thing clearly. You will only see your old framework projected onto it. This is happening right now with AI. The same instinct that made people learn programming through metaphors of files and folders is making people understand large language models through metaphors of brains and people. Almost every framework being used to describe AI in 2026 is borrowed from a previous domain. None of them quite fit. The few people who are actually building useful intuitions about how these systems work are the ones who have done what Dijkstra recommended forty years ago. They have set down the old vocabulary. They have looked at the new thing on its own terms. They have accepted that the radical novelty is radical for a reason. You are not slow. You were taught a discipline as if it were a hobby. The cruelty is real. The fix is still available.

@captain_kent Всем привет! А что такое "чеболи"? Поясните русскому мужику

性压抑程度：中国 > 韩国 > 日本 日本🇯🇵：日本风俗业太发达，日本男人操不到心爱的逼，久而久之都阳痿了。 韩国🇰🇷：韩国财阀垄断性资源，韩国年轻男人又没本事，根本操不到逼。 中国🇨🇳：中国女人喜欢卡法律BUG，很容易被反手告强奸，所以中国男人压根不敢操逼。

@Sarahqga Yes!

Seja sincero você ficaria comigo sabendo que sou uma mulher trans? 🏳️‍⚧️ #transex

@babyshailo Marry me 😍

We’re cuddling on the couch and I quietly say: “There’s something you should know… I’m trans 🏳️‍⚧️” Your reaction?

@KugelV6 Правда, женщин бесят другие женщины, которые красивее/успешные/счастливые Парадокс, но это факт На том же YouTube есть куча видео как реагируют и смотрят женщины на красотку в толпе

As I grow wiser, I get more and more convinced that women who try to gatekeep other women are doing so because they are old and ugly

@Vendigo262 Респект за слова Вольтера в профиле🫶

Хоть мужа, хоть жену, хоть небинарного/ую супруга/гиню, просто мечта...

@TsSarahhh Yes

Would you date an older trans woman? 🏳️‍⚧️😏

@LarryJones 13, 16, 20 = False

I feel confident nobody can check all 20!! How many can you check off? 1. Used a rotary phone 2. Used a floppy disc 3. Used a typewriter 4. Taken photos with a film camera 5. Listened to music on a CD 6. Listened to a cassette tape 7. Listened to a vinyl record 8. Listened to music on a Walkman 9. Listened to music on a boombox outside 10. Watched a video from a VHS tape 11. Sent or received a fax 12. Recorded music from radio to cassette 13. Rented a video from Blockbuster 14. Accessed the internet by dial-up 15. Used a phone book 16. Sent a postcard 17. Used a paper map to get somewhere 18. Owned a dictionary 19. Owned an encyclopedia 20. Paid with a paper cheque/check