Thank you for verifying 🙂

Hm, my guess would be either “cube control” or “cube C-T-L”.

EDIT (2025-02-28T09:02Z): Hm, actually, given that it’s for Kubernetes ^[1], maybe it’s “koob control” or “koob C-T-L”… ^[2]?

Do you mean /ɲiɲks/?

Here are the sounds for each:

• ɲ ^[1]
• ŋ ^[2]

Basically, every search engine has incorporated LLMs and are shoving them down your throat. If we are talking about tools that I would find useful I’d rather have a reverse image search. […]

So, for clarity, are you saying that a reverse image search tool is more useful to you than AI integration, yet search engines are pushing for AI integration rather than reverse image search tools, and they may not have reverse image search tools at all?

Edit: damn, that down vote hurt. Must be an llm developer, I guess.

If you are accusing me, I would like to clarify that, as of writing this, I have not downvoted your comment ^[1].

Could you elaborate? I don’t understand what you mean.

…it’s not “curl”?

EDIT (2025-02-27T04:15Z):

cURL (pronounced like “curl”, /kɜːrl/) […] [1]

🤔

the streaming in an SS uniform […]

Do you have a source?

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be outlining the paradox of tolerance.

Imo, this is just an argument of definitions. For example, Merriam-Webster’s definition doesn’t require one to be paid in order for them to be called a journalist ^[1[2]]. Whether a one must be paid in order to call themself a chef, however, seems to depend on the definition of “proffesional” ^[3] and perhaps “profession” ^[4], neither of which explicitly require one to be paid ^[4][5].

I just don’t follow what your point is. Could you elaborate?

The process we’re discussing isn’t about verifying the final article, it’s about verifying the source itself.

Okay, sure, but one can’t verify a source if the source wasn’t cited in the first place.

“A young man stole a car” “Man, 28 (link), steals car” “Man, 28 (link), of latino descent (link) commits crime in our town (link)”

Which of these is complying with your guidelines closest and which one is creating a more biased narrative?

That’s a fair point.

[…] a problem that either doesn’t exist or doesn’t make up the bulk of the issue you’re trying to fix […]

Would you mind going into more depth about “the bulk of the issue you’re trying to fix”? I would love to hear a counter opinion on what the true issue(s) may be.

Could it not be said that “nothing” is actually a thing? 🤔

A likely comparatively barebones (but sufficient for my needs) solution that I use is Obsidian with Synching.

What specific features are you looking for?

[…] Anyone stupid enough to believe obvious rubbish doesn’t care what your source is.

I do understand your point, I think. I’ve had an ongoing quandary regarding how one should effectively debate irrationality. But I still personally believe that one’s allegiance to the truth is a matter of principle rather than a matter of pragmatism. I think sources should be cited not necessarily with the intent of using them as ammunition to prove an argument, but mainly for one to ground themselves in evidence based thinking.

Thank you for the source 🙂

[…] We havent (and shouldnt) dismantle it just because it can be abused.

I hesitantly agree, though I would clarify that I don’t think that’s an argument for not improving the justice system.