Posted by ColinWright 10/29/2025
Wikipedia's version:
> Brilliant Pebbles was a non-nuclear system of satellite-based interceptors designed to use high-velocity, watermelon-sized, teardrop-shaped tungsten projectiles as kinetic warheads.[79][80] It was designed to operate in conjunction with the Brilliant Eyes sensor system. The project was conceived in November 1986 by Lowell Wood at LLNL.[81] Detailed studies were undertaken by several advisory boards, including the Defense Science Board and JASON, in 1989.
Grok's version:
> The Brilliant Pebbles program, initiated in 1990 by the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO), represented a shift toward distributed, cost-effective constellations of micro-satellites, each approximately 45-100 kg and equipped with autonomous processors for onboard target discrimination and interception.
Both contain errors, although different errors.
Once that is in place you can make Grok eat it's own tail by using Retrieval-Augmented Generation on Grok with Grokaiedia (that is now crowdsourced for updates).
This may offset the side effects of model collapse from AIs consuming their own synthetic outputs with enough humanity sprinkled into the mix.
Semantic satiation -- a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener,[1] who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds. Extended inspection or analysis (staring at the word or phrase for a long time) in place of repetition also produces the same effect.Whodda thunk?
America was struggling because of healthcare, college costs, rising rents, mortgages, overall inequality, China rising etc. Trump/Musk/etc saw their chance.
It doesn't surprise me nor does it upset me that Grokipedia would include Wikipedia as an input source, nor do I feel like they're hypocritical for doing so given their stated goals. If you think a source has a bias problem, it makes sense to use that source for reference while applying your own bias checking to it.
This sentence is meaningless.
The meaning is that when things that should not be political questions because they have objectively correct answers do become political in recent years most of the time it is liberals whose positions match the objectively correct answer.
Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that liberals are more often correct than conservatives on how to deal with those things--that often is something that does not have an objectively correct answer and so is something that people can reasonably disagree over and so can reasonably become political.
For example consider climate change. How to address climate change is something that does not have an objectively correct answer and so you can't say that any given political group is right or wrong on that.
However, the question of whether or not the increases in the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere since pre-industrial time are most due to human activity is a question that does have an objectively correct answer. The C in CO2 comes in several different isotopes, and by looking at changes in the ratios between those isotopes in the C in atmospheric CO2 it is possible to determine that most of the increase has come from burning fossil fuels.
If a political group is taking the position that the rise in CO2 is not due to human activity they are objectively wrong, and the phrase that reality has a well known bias against that group is a way of highlighting that.
Only if you're a liberal who confuses the information you receive, usually filtered through other liberals, for reality (which many do).
tl;dr: if you think reality agrees with your politics, you're actually just in a bubble.
Conservatism, as an ideology, is built on the belief that conservatism has always been wrong, until about 20 years ago to just now. That's what they're trying to conserve: always the very, very near past.
That's hilariously wrong: you're basically claiming current-day conservatives [or at least Trump I conservatives, if you want to be hyper-literal) are all about conserving [Democratic-party] Clintonism. Pretty soon they'll all in on Obamacare? You're trying to be clever but have no idea what you're talking about.
The anti-gay stuff? Uh, yeah, Clinton. Anti-drug rhetoric? Clinton! Protecting our borders? Believe it or not, Clinton!
> Pretty soon they'll all in on Obamacare?
I mean, yeah. The entire concept of Obamacare was a compromise to soothe conservatives. It solidified the power and necessity of private insurance in America by entrenching it in regulation.
They're not gonna be for universal healthcare, but Obamacare? You bet your ass that's going to be their platform in a few years.
You're backwards here. IIRC, don't-ask-don't-tell was progressive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell
> The policy prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, ... This relaxation of legal restrictions on service by gays and lesbians in the armed forces.
> ...the DADT policy specified that superiors should not initiate an investigation of a service member's orientation without witnessing disallowed behaviors. ... Unauthorized investigations and harassment of suspected servicemen and women led to an expansion of the policy to "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass".
And Clinton didn't have a choice on DOMA and criticized it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act:
> passed both houses of Congress by large, veto-proof majorities. Support was bipartisan, though about a third of the Democratic caucus in both the House and Senate opposed it. Clinton criticized DOMA as "divisive and unnecessary". He nonetheless signed it into law in September 1996.
tl;dr: Anyone who believes or defends the idea:
>>> Conservatism, as an ideology, is built on the belief that conservatism has always been wrong, until about 20 years ago to just now. That's what they're trying to conserve: always the very, very near past.
Doesn't know what they're talking about and doesn't have their facts straight.
> I mean... yeah. All this talk about cutting services and fixing the deficit. That's Clinton stuff, that's what he did. That was his platform.
JFC, do you know nothing? Conservatives aren't seeking to conserve Clintonism, Clinton co-opted a lot of conservative policies (see: "triangulation"). That's the source any overlap, and conservatives still hate him for all the other stuff.
The idea that conservatives' only ideology is preserving the status quo of exactly N years ago, is completely unsupported by the facts and frankly ludicrous. Give it up. There's some genuine radicalism there, and whatever things they seek to "conserve" tend to fit in one of a few ideological frameworks that drive what they pick and choose.