@mattsteg.bsky.social
Craig Bond was a reboot and that worked well.
The problem is that they established that You Only Live Twice so they can't reboot again.
The problem is that they established that You Only Live Twice so they can't reboot again.
November 11, 2025 at 1:10 PM
Craig Bond was a reboot and that worked well.
The problem is that they established that You Only Live Twice so they can't reboot again.
The problem is that they established that You Only Live Twice so they can't reboot again.
To be fair he was a starter and 3rd in minutes for a 52 win team.
November 8, 2025 at 7:41 PM
To be fair he was a starter and 3rd in minutes for a 52 win team.
Best to wear 36 for the wolves though.
November 8, 2025 at 7:27 PM
Best to wear 36 for the wolves though.
It hits different when shit falls off of GIF search.
November 8, 2025 at 6:33 PM
It hits different when shit falls off of GIF search.
Also, it matches my childhood bedroom so maybe I'm biased.
November 8, 2025 at 5:43 PM
Also, it matches my childhood bedroom so maybe I'm biased.
You can really see who has their TVs on showroom retina-burning mode.
Looks great on a properly calibrated display.
Looks great on a properly calibrated display.
November 8, 2025 at 5:42 PM
You can really see who has their TVs on showroom retina-burning mode.
Looks great on a properly calibrated display.
Looks great on a properly calibrated display.
The time(s) that shall not be named? Or the undefeated team of 1902?
November 4, 2025 at 10:00 PM
The time(s) that shall not be named? Or the undefeated team of 1902?
You likely aren't going to find a reliable automated way to detect fabricated LLM work, and attempting to do so may be more problem than solution.
To the extent that you can, imposing checkable requirements on things low-effort LLM slop frequently screws up is probably "better".
To the extent that you can, imposing checkable requirements on things low-effort LLM slop frequently screws up is probably "better".
November 3, 2025 at 12:25 PM
You likely aren't going to find a reliable automated way to detect fabricated LLM work, and attempting to do so may be more problem than solution.
To the extent that you can, imposing checkable requirements on things low-effort LLM slop frequently screws up is probably "better".
To the extent that you can, imposing checkable requirements on things low-effort LLM slop frequently screws up is probably "better".
I'd personally try to push that work to the submitters. Obviously you can't review references, but if they need to provide valid URLs at least verifying they exist feels like it should be feasible.
November 3, 2025 at 12:12 PM
I'd personally try to push that work to the submitters. Obviously you can't review references, but if they need to provide valid URLs at least verifying they exist feels like it should be feasible.
Honestly: don't do this. It's not reliable, builds your reliance on bad tools, and generates bad outcomes by sowing false confidence (or suspicion). I'd rather do things to guard against specific things like phantom references by requiring valid urls for all references.
November 3, 2025 at 8:57 AM
Honestly: don't do this. It's not reliable, builds your reliance on bad tools, and generates bad outcomes by sowing false confidence (or suspicion). I'd rather do things to guard against specific things like phantom references by requiring valid urls for all references.
Somehow this simultaneously answers and doesn't answer the question.
Wtf *is* "mayonnaise-style sauce"?
Wtf *is* "mayonnaise-style sauce"?
November 2, 2025 at 4:09 AM
Somehow this simultaneously answers and doesn't answer the question.
Wtf *is* "mayonnaise-style sauce"?
Wtf *is* "mayonnaise-style sauce"?
Such De'Anthony Melton slander.
November 2, 2025 at 1:43 AM
Such De'Anthony Melton slander.
The strategic omission of per WHAT is 💯 clutch.
November 1, 2025 at 1:08 AM
The strategic omission of per WHAT is 💯 clutch.