Example with news.ycombinator.com: https://dnsviz.net/d/news.ycombinator.com/dnssec/

I'd be careful with that. Sounds like you could be mistaken for a bot that is part of the scheme and get your Google account banned.

Then again, you should live under the assumption that your Google account could be banned at any time with no recourse. You do have local backups of all your Google account data and don't need your Gmail account to access anything important, right?

That makes me realize that banning is a punishment only usable on people who care about their account. Scammers don’t, a new bot account is a click away. But basilikum would be sad to lose his account.

For something like YouTube, there is a small monetary cost in order to verify a phone number.

you don't need to verify the phone number to comment

Depends on how much Google dislikes your IP and browser.

How is monero not a privacy tool?

People try to fix things that are perfectly fine all the time.

People often apply nonsensical standards to things.

It's not intuitive to me how to close the controls panel at the bottom again (mobile). Consider adding a closing symbol to the top bar.

You are making a bunch of claims about a situation you know nothing about.

GP made a claim about the precision of his language that is incompatible with natural language.

This is already known: GP is wildly overconfident in their communication skills.

The OP just told us all what it was about. You don't know any more or less than I do.

I simply am skeptical of their smug take on it.

That article is three sentences of content spaced out over a whole page.

I'm usually precise in my wording and choose specific words for a reason and am also sometimes annoyed by people ignoring the preciseness.

However I also sometimes cannot find the correct precise words to describe what I mean in unambiguous, but also concise words, so I sometimes choose much less precise words for lack of a better alternative. Oftentimes I denote that when I find it important, but it happens way too often to do that every time.

Also words simply aren't completely precise. A word might be perfectly fitting for what I want to say with it in a situation, but someone else understands it as something slightly different and they are not wrong about it. Words often simply do not have one exact shared meaning.

Natural language is imprecise and it is fundamentally a lossy compression function. One that uses a shared dictionary that is not identical for both encoder and decoder. You simply need some amount of error correction in encoding and decoding.

In the same way that the "worse" a speaker is at communicating the more likely something gets lost, the same is true the "worse" the audience is at listening or paying attention or understanding. Both ends make the connection. This will be easy to read as calling the audience dumb, but that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying the ability to understand involves trying and the audience has some control over successful communication much like the speaker does. They can sit with the idea for a second longer before responding, learn and pickup (or ask about) whatever gap they have if they’re not up to speed, or in many cases just listen without distraction.

Conversations have various power dynamics where one person may have more of the burden, but it is far from always a speaker pitching something to someone who isn't inclined to it. Peers leave hallway chats regularly having “aligned” on two different things. Lots of things we’re talking about are actually complex and simple communication will effectively be miscommunication.

I think we’ve moved too far to broadly attributing confusion to weak speaking. It can certainly help to keep polishing and reworking your words to overcome worse and worse listening habits. That can take one very far, but it doesn’t change that we’re making the bar higher and higher and therefore more messages/ideas dissipate into air.

It doesn't look as generic and vomit inducing as all the AI sloped web pages and apps some people here show off for incomprehensible reasons.

It still has some of the AI slop marks though. The background gradient for example.

Overall it's not consistent and seems to mix different styles which is different from the typical AI slop that is consistently bland and generic. It does look off and eerie to me.

How much human work did you put into this and how much of this is AI made?

why does this matter?

Because a URL shortener is a one-line prompt today.

You will have to put a lot of effort and attention to detail to make a one-line prompt more worth than it is on its own.

Not sure whether that happened here though.