They said sounds like a dick, seems like that provides a level of measure to calling anyone anything.
> because this is only part of the story
Care to share the other part(s)? Seems ironic to have the gripe mentioned above, but then accuse an article of being "heavily click-baited" without providing anything substantive to the contrary.
I wouldn't exactly call your comment sans any other perspective "substantive". Where is the Wikipedia discussion? And the blog post your bot allegedly wrote? Why no links to the article in question?
Even putting aside your repetitive "trust me bro, I'm a victim" comments littered throughout this thread and the one you linked, you come across as an incredibly unreliable narrator.
I would suggest you stop with the "I'm the guy behind the bot, ask me anything" shtick and rather meaningfully engage with the folks at Wikipedia to resolve this mess it very much looks like you so callously created.
It (normally) has an effect on the military calculus - e.g. if the US weren't allowed to have military bases in these countries, the possibility to take such action seems less plausible.
Correct, but that's not my point. My point is whether the Gulf States can realistically dictate what the US does. Perhaps they can affect US actions, but I doubt it's that cut and dried.
Nobody can realistically maintain bases in a country without some sort of agreement with the local government (and a certain level of tolerance from the population at large) or an expensive full-on occupation. As far as I know, there is a single US base on a territory where the local government does not want it (Guantanamo, Cuba), literally on the doorstep - anywhere else would be prohibitive to maintain long-term hostile occupation.
Everything else is maintained and operated in agreement with local authorities - which is why the US, at the moment, cannot use Spanish bases and Diego Garcia to wage war on Iran. Even Saudi bases have been blocked in the past (notably to invade Iraq).
Without long-term bases, it becomes extremely difficult to project power with continuity. Can you still do the occasional special op, like killing Osama? Sure, but you can't do things like ensuring free navigation (and hence the flow of resources and goods) and signal intelligence gets so much harder.
the mask can be taken off at least, that the bases are there so that americans can kill the gulf state leaders in a moment's notice, rather than for any defenses.
And what does "productive" mean to you, exactly? To most, causing eating disorders in teenage girls (Instagram), being at the root of undermining various democracies (Facebook) and having credible evidence of aiding addiction for profit (this case) against you would be a tough set of qualifiers, I'd imagine.
Listing a kill count doesn't amount to evidence that the war has been well thought out, it only tells us the US and Israel are good at assassinations.
It is clear the initial aim was to decapitate the leadership and expect capitulation of some form or another to follow. This obviously hasn't happened, and so the fallout grows by the day.
1. You start off by labelling both platforms as "extreme partisan" - care to explain?
2. This charge is used to minimize the original complaint (login requirement), which is a hard blocker to view replies, i.e. additional context.
3. This all then somehow morphs into a point about platform longevity?
How exactly does any of this address parent commenter's statement that "bsky is just a superior viewing experience."?
I appreciate that you can so readily admit that - definitely not something commonly seen.
Could you say a bit more about what's behind your dislike of Bluesky? I'm curious as I don't know much about it, other than it's possibly become a home of the more liberal/left-leaning base that found themselves disguested by Twitter/X once Musk took over (fairly so IMO, given how that's led to things like Grok AI's sexualized photo).
Basically what you said. I find it to be a liberal echo chamber as intolerable as any conservative echo chamber. I actually prefer Twitter because in my experience there's a lot of neutral content and you can pretty much evade all political commentary if you take care of who you follow. For example, I follow almost exclusively accounts that talk about art history, archaeology, and cinematography... and it's really hard to find dedicated accounts about most topics on BlueSky. It's too small.
Basically, over there users tend to be in a position of "we're against $topic" while on Twitter you can still find millions of users with the position of "we just really like $topic". At least that has been my experience so far.
Sounds like you've managed to find a configuration on Twitter that works well for you. I've recently seen some people anecdotally say the same about Facebook, which I find surprising in 2026.
I think its worh bearing in mind that Twitter was born in a period of creation and tech-optimism, when the world thought a "digital town square" could accommodate all voices. This is obviously no longer the case. Maybe in thr future it will change, who knows.
> See Wikipedia, where they talk about how they are not biased, they have many processes that ensure no biases, blah blah blah, and it turns out they are massively biased, what a surprise.
It's clear you have some unfounded issue with Wikipedia. They are not "massively biased", that's a talking point propelled primarily by the right/far right because of a desire to rewrite history to match their ideological needs.
Saying "there very likely is existing research into evaluating political bias in LLMs" essentially means very little because
1. By your own admission you can't even say for sure that such research is actually happening (it probably is, but you admit you don't actually know)
2. There is no guarantee such research will lead to anywhere anytime soon
3. Even if it does, how does a means of evaluating bias in LLMs provide a path to eliminating it?
There has been lots of discussion about wikipedia’s bias in HN and elsewhere for years and I’m not going to rehash all of that.
> […] AI) as a viable replacement for the status quo.
Given that the status quo is clearly biased and structurally unwilling to be unbiased due to existing political affiliation, even an AI that is not evaluated all that well will be better. It can only get better from this status quo, so it’s a fine argument.
Discussion doesn't constitute consensus or conclusion - as I said several comments up, widespread bias in Wikipedia is a talking point propagated by those with an agenda to distort factual accuracy - people like Musk have hardly been subtle about this being their objective.
> even an AI that is not evaluated all that well will be better
This is just intellectual laziness. If you don't like Wikipedia that's fine, but if you're going to make the effort of characterising it as such on a public forum, the least you can do is make an effort to that point. This certainly isn't a "fine" argument at all.
They said sounds like a dick, seems like that provides a level of measure to calling anyone anything.
> because this is only part of the story
Care to share the other part(s)? Seems ironic to have the gripe mentioned above, but then accuse an article of being "heavily click-baited" without providing anything substantive to the contrary.
reply