• 0 Posts
  • 75 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 1st, 2026

help-circle







  • Americans seem to very directly associate the organisation FIFA with the sport of soccer and the World Cup itself.

    I think it comes from the literal ownership of sports leagues and sports teams by corporations like MLB, NFL, NHL.

    FIFA doesn’t own soccer, it doesn’t own any of the teams, and it barely owns the World Cup. It is tolerated as a necessary evil that someone has to do the organising, but historically for example, major nations have shrugged and ignored FIFA as inconsequential.

    Sport in general is just vastly different on an emotional and political level in other countries. The immediate dismissal of “sports isn’t news” and “sports shouldn’t be political” very obviously shows who has grown up in an environment where sport is primarily a backdrop over which corporate sponsorships and endorsements are laid.

    The politics associated with sports isn’t always good or nuanced but it is there.












  • I don’t think you understand the scale of the amount of data that has been fed into these models. Already fed in, as in the models are already created, the baseline already established, the dataset responsible for the output they want already retained.

    Any attempt to “poison” them is attempting to add one, ten, a thousand, a million confounding data points against every webpage 1993-2026, every book ever digitised, every social media post made public, every transcript of every video on YouTube, every code comment made public, every post on this federated platform.

    For news articles alone, that’s about 20 billion non-poisoned articles. Do you know what the difference between a million poisoned pages and 20 billion is? 20 billion.

    The Daily Mail (vomit) alone publishes 1,500 articles a day. How many do you plan on publishing?


  • They’re saying (bizarrely, as if moving abroad but keeping their currency in dollars was a realistic option anyway) that it somehow contributes to reducing the influence of the dollar worldwide.

    It doesn’t. It means someone bought US dollars using a different currency (more of an exchange, but the initiating party is essentially buying) and now someone has US dollars that they need to spend. Either by buying products direct from the USA, or by they themselves selling US dollars to someone else, circulating it, until eventually it is repatriated (or destroyed, physically or in value, I guess).

    The way you reduce a currency’s influence is by making it unstable or devaluing it, basically anything that stops people wanting to buy it or accept it as stored value.