First, imagine a number in JavaScript. (Bit of a nail biter here, huh?)

let i = 5

Then, we will construct an incrementor. This is really simple: here is the method.

1. Make a bracket-string-centric version of eval().

[]["filter"]["constructor"]("return i+1")()

2. Reconstruct stringy eval() by using +[] as 0, +!+[] as 1, and implicit conversions as ways to create strings. For example, ‘false’ is (![]+[]), so ‘f’ is (![]+[])[+[]].

[][
  (![] + [])[+[]] + // f
  ([![]] + [][[]])[+!+[] + [+[]]] + // i
  (![] + [])[!+[] + !+[]] + // l
  (!![] + [])[+[]] + // t
  (!![] + [])[!+[] + !+[] + !+[]] + // e
  (!![] + [])[+!+[]] // r
][
  ([][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+ // c
  (!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+ // o
  ([][[]]+[])[+!+[]]+ // n
  (![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+ // s
  (!![]+[])[+[]]+ // t
  (!![]+[])[+!+[]]+ // r
  ([][[]]+[])[+[]]+ // u
  ([][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+ // c
  (!![]+[])[+[]]+ // t
  (!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+ // o
  (!![]+[])[+!+[]] // r
]("return i+1")()

3. Draw the rest of the fucking owl. Final code:

let i = 5; // haha yay

[][
  (![] + [])[+[]] + // f
  ([![]] + [][[]])[+!+[] + [+[]]] + // i
  (![] + [])[!+[] + !+[]] + // l
  (!![] + [])[+[]] + // t
  (!![] + [])[!+[] + !+[] + !+[]] + // e
  (!![] + [])[+!+[]] // r
][
  ([][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+ // c
  (!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+ // o
  ([][[]]+[])[+!+[]]+ // n
  (![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+ // s
  (!![]+[])[+[]]+ // t
  (!![]+[])[+!+[]]+ // r
  ([][[]]+[])[+[]]+ // u
  ([][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+ // c
  (!![]+[])[+[]]+ // t
  (!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+ // o
  (!![]+[])[+!+[]] // r
](
  (!![]+[])[+!+[]]+ // r
  (!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+ // e
  (!![]+[])[+[]]+ // t
  ([][[]]+[])[+[]]+ // u
  (!![]+[])[+!+[]]+ // r
  ([][[]]+[])[+!+[]]+ // n
  (+[![]]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]])[+!+[]+[+!+[]]]+ // ' '
  ([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+ // i
  (+(+!+[]+(!+[]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+[+!+[]]+[+[]]+[+[]])+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+ // +
  +!+[] // 1
)()
// no virus i swear. execute arbitrary code in your browser console.

Anyway, that’s just everyday JS work. It’s like step 5 after resizing the button, but a bit before centering the div.

based on this. _{some translation methods done differently.}

Whoops, typo! Fixed c:

I forgive 'em cuz watt hours are a disgusting unit in general

Work over time, × time, is just work! kWh are just joules (J) with extra steps! Screw kWh, I will die on this hill!!! Raaah

Thank you! (˶ˆᗜˆ˵) ✧

A lot of comments here are suspicious of you, so I’m going to try my hand at guessing whether this was AI.

Since GPTs are hilariously bad at detecting themselves, I’ll venture on the human spirit!

First, we establish truth 1: this is copy-pasted.

Although Moissanite isn’t mentioned twice, everything after “Synthetic Alexandrite” inclusively is mentioned twice. That means this was procedurally copy-pasted. Someone writing on their own would either CTRL+A then CTRL+C and make no mistakes, or not repeat themself at all.

Of course, we can also look at the half-formalized format that indicates something was copied from raw text and pasted into markdown, rather than formatted with markdown first.

Colon:
words words Colon:
words words Colon:

copy-paster spotted

Second, we cast doubt that a human wrote the source.

• AI-isms vs. non AI-isms

  • Non-reused acronym definitions.

    Garnets like… yttrium iron garnet (YIG)

    This is probably taken straight from the Wikipedia’s site description for YIG. Usually humans don’t define an acronym only to never use it, unless they’re making a mistake, especially not for just making repeated structure. So either Wikipedia was in the training corpus or this was Googled.

  • 5/23 sentences start with “While” (weak ai indicator)

  • no three-em dashes or obvious tricolons are overused (non ai-indicator)

  • no filler bullshit introduction or conclusion (non ai-indicator)

  • obvious repeated structure that you can feel (strong ai indicator)

  • Suspiciously uncreative descriptions (ai indicator)

    “These stones are not just rare but impossible to find naturally, offering a unique and unconventional aesthetic perfect for someone looking to stand out.” (emphasis added)

  • Repetition of “unusual” and “rare” rather than more flavorful or useful adjectives (AI indicator)

    • We’re talking synthetic stuff. Would a human write about rarity?

  • Superficial, neutral-positive voice despite length and possible source. If this was pasted from a technical blog, I’d expect it to have more “I” and personal experiences, or more deep anecdotal flavor (AI indicator)

    • e.g. use of “fascinating” but doesn’t go deeper into any positivities

Third… let’s take a guess

So it was copy-pasted from somewhere, but I can’t imagine it being from a blog or website, and it isn’t directly from Wikipedia. It has some nonhuman mistakes, but is otherwise grammatical, neutral-positive, and repetitively structured. And it lacks that deeper flavor. So… it was an AI, but likely not openAI.

At least there aren’t any very “committal” facts, so the length but lack of depth suggests that everything’s maaaaaaybe true…

I wasted my time typing this

Cool-ass economics fun fact, hell yeah

_{or not so fun}

vibeo gane,

Actually, you’re the main character. I’m out of render distance and am only visible by coordinate pointer and randomized text messages :>

why is morgan freeman narrating all of the sudden. give me my leitmotif back

What percentage of scrutiny should we follow? [1]

Eigenvector. [2]

[1]: Reinhardt, W. (2012). On the trustworthiness of numbers. Cambridge University Press.

[2]: Paper, M. (2022). Station of play, fifth of its variant. Antarctic Publishing. https://jstor.org/stable/12345-paywalled

obligatory navier-stokes equation

Whoa, I didn’t know about this! My trustworthy beloved orange apps were sold to ZipoApps, a company that flips apps into ad revenue.

But has anything changed for the worse yet? I don’t see any odd commits in the history (e.g. Draw). I’ll probably just lock the F-Droid version of the Simple gear I can’t switch.

-1 accuracy point ( ◞ ﹏ ◟)

linux 4.5-rc5 had efivarfs fixed to prevent “rm -rf /” bricking uefi motherboards – so maybe someone can try it out? :]

Hahaha, I’m overjoyed that you’re joyful! Net positive.

You aren’t alone on the absolutivity thing, autism or not. Absolute blanket statements have always made me uncomfortable. With stuff like

Leftists are all self-righteous.

American Republicans are all backwards.

Christians are cultists.

and the obvious accompanying internet convoy of

Clicks -> discussion -> algorithm promotion -> pipeline -> opinions upgrade from “bad cases of” to “lots of them” to “all of them”

not only sacrifice nuance and make it easy to Just Stay Agreeable, but discourage any questioning of the status quo.

Of course, one can argue that this is an online thing, an archetype of Reddit and Tumblr and Twitter spaces, but now I don’t even question these things aloud in real life. I don’t want to be seen as

The “see-from-all-sides” guy is obviously a closeted bigot lmao.

in a place where reputation actually matters, but it’d be easy to lump me in like that. Nuancelessness is simple, kneejerk, catchy…

Now, my point. I don’t think I’m making this up, and maybe I’ll get downvoted for this diatribe but I feel like disagreeing in real life has become much riskier. Am I sounding cynical again? As a solution (solutions aren’t cynical right?), optimally I’d want a way to discuss across views in an educated, “I’ll hear you out” way, but the real-life risk outweighs reward, and online spaces bubble-up really easily. Counterpoint: r/changemyview has put up promising resistance.

The other day I saw this business school complaint discussion. It’s on a kind of out-of-touch subreddit, but what do you think of its survivalistic smile-and-wave message?

Sorry for being so negative =.=

Wow, really interesting take! Made me realize…

Wow. I’m the baddie.

I’ve done my fair share of admit “AI bad, Twitter bad” and felt that shift towards cynicism, I admit – but 'til now I couldn’t see my own hand in the subject. I’d worked hard over the years to avoid the more overt frustrator communities like r/facepalm, but as much as I’d like to presume… I’m clearly not doing so much better after all.

That ambient cynicism… I still perpetuated it, I still wrote those kneejerk comments, I still went on the preordained in-group spiel of valuelessnesses.

It’s so easy to insult the things you mentioned, to partake in the “I Want to be Agreeable and Get Points” mindset and dunk. But it’s precluding our ability to experience the things you mentioned in para #4. I want more of para #4 in my life… I’ll need to think things differently.

Idk. Thanks for the meaningful substance. :p