It does capture how I feel a lot of the time when I'm reading stuff like this. Essentially: it's not worth the cognitive effort to figure out if it's wrong, not even wrong, or kinda true but hugely oversimplified.

These continue to be excellent. I think "huh?" should have been a blurb for Sapiens.

Not even a human thing, really.

Nothing signals authenticity quite as effectively as briefing your future emotional state.

Quite likely a stock photo rather than AI, but your point stands.

“Imagine my disgust when I discovered the people on stage were only pretending to be Romeo and Juliet.”

A small Eurorack modular skiff, showing three patch cables connecting the outputs of a uSeq live coding module to inputs on a VHIKK-X module.

One day I will get my head round the uSeq, but it is not this day.

Trying so hard to make “crispy onions are nice” a take.

Before our platforms owned by the worst people on Earth.

Only if you’re a septic.

Serious about breadbins is a mediocre folk album name, but quite a good cryptic crossword clue.

No one has ever claimed to be serious about breadbins.

Some folk never tire of policing other people’s fun.

In these times we live in there is a strange power in not being a hateful weirdo.

I think we’re just talking past each other, so yeah probably best left there.

To be honest I expected him to be a much better PM than he’s turned out to be, but I also think he was handed a landslide victory that he didn’t actually do anything to earn.

Granted. And there is an argument that Starmer was a safe pair of hands that made it hard for the right wing rags to craft an attack line.

You can, but I‘m afraid you’d have to be simple-minded to say that while ignoring the collapse in the Tory vote.

You can, if you like, argue that Starmer persuaded people not to vote for the Tories; you can’t claim he did persuade people to vote for Labour.

Which would make sense if Labour had increased its vote share in target seats, but what actually happened is that the Tories lost vote share by even more.

Right. So getting fewer votes but somehow magically changing the way non-Labour voters split their vote is what makes him a political genius?

Default PM.

So any Labour leader who won a larger share of the vote would have to be pretty impressive, right?

I think, oddly, this falls into category 2.

Ah, ok. So is this sequence 1) pencil and ink (which I love, by the way), 2) watercolour, 3) Paint, 4) Grok?

FWIW I suppose I'm fairly anti-AI, but in this case the result seems to be 90%+ you.

What software are you using these days, Andrew?

Well this is terrifying.

I totally agree.

Some people think he's a genius, some people think he's a total bullshit merchant. Somehow they're both right.