Who said it needs to add value? The article claims that showing AI-generated content to others without them explicitly asking for it is inherently bad - even when you tell them it’s AI. So basically: if you share it without mentioning the source you’re deceiving people, and if you do mention it it’s still bad… because reasons.

To me that just sounds like an ideological stance more than a logical one.

You dismiss the whole person just because they acknowledge using an LLM? That seems a bit harsh - especially since they had the decency to mention the source, which is basically the same as saying “take this with a grain of salt.”

I’ve used DDG for the past 7 years or so. When ever I don’t find what I’m looking for I just add !g to the search term and it Googles it for me.

I needed to make a new account when lemm.ee shut down and feddit.uk was the first one that came to mind. I’m not even from the UK.

I only did it here to illustrate a point. Typically I only use it on longer posts. I’m not a native english speaker and I often struggle to express my thoughts clearly and I find it immensely useful to run it through AI and see the corrections it made.

Kyllä kannatti taas käyttäytyä kuin mikäki mulkku. On turha varmaan jäädä odottelemaan minkäänlaista anteekspyyntöä tästä lapsellisesta käytöksestä ja perättömistä syytöksistä. Eikä kannata vaivautuakkaan - ei tule jatkossa viestit enää perille.

Why would the Finns be silly and not do that.

If it was not possible to place the charge space inside the abutment or pier, charge hooks could be embedded in the supports during the casting phase, to which the charges could then be attached.

Source

Just because the final output comes from AI doesn’t always mean a human didn’t put real effort into writing it. There’s a big difference between asking an LLM to write something from scratch, telling it exactly what to say, or just having it edit and polish what you already wrote.

A ton of my replies here - including this one - are technically “AI output,” but all the AI really did was take what I wrote, clean it up, and turn it into coherent text that’s easier for the reader to follow.

Keskeisen aseman suomalaisessa sodanjälkeisessä suluttamistaktiikassa saanut syvä suluttaminen ja etenkin 1960-luvulla uhkakuviin nousseen yllätyshyökkäyksen torjuntavalmiuden kehittäminen saivat merkittävän tuen heti sotien jälkeen. Siltoja koskeva päätös rakenteellisista suluttamisvalmisteluista tehtiin 15.1.1946. Niillä tarkoitettiin panoskaivojen, panoskomeroiden, panosputkien ja panoskoukkujen rakentamista. Siltoja rakennuttavat viranomaiset velvoitettiin sisällyttämään suunnitelmiin edellä mainitut rakenteet, joiden ansiosta siltojen hävittämisvalmius parani oleellisesti.

Mikäli panostilan sijoittaminen maa- tai välituen sisälle ei ollut mahdollista, tukiin voitiin valamisvaiheessa sijoittaa panoskoukkuja, joihin panokset voitiin kiinnittää.

Lähde

It’s better to have a plan and not have to use it than the other way around.

As a pioneer I’m quite certain that the explosive you’re supposed to hang from there is just a plain anti-tank mine or few. It’s basically just a 10kg chunk of TNT - even has a handle.

I struggle to understand why you oppose this so much. You already confirmed that they indeed leave charge pits on bridges for the exact same reason. Why don’t you want to accept that these hooks serve the same purpose, but they’re used when a charge pit is inconvenient - like on the support pillars in the middle?

I just got back from a 100 km trip, and I paid extra attention to this. These hooks were on every single bridge pillar I saw. There are charge pits at each end and hooks on the support pillars. It’s not rebar either, but prefabricated hooks that are clearly put there for a purpose.

I’m really tempted to just email Destia and ask for a confirmation but I feel like asking stuff like that might sound a bit suspicious so I hesitate.

Exposed rebar is a big nono in construction. It lets water in which causes rusting and eventually chunks of concrete start falling off.

Drilling is slow. Efficiency isn’t the point here, speed is.

This isn’t exactly a regular road either but highway number four which leads straight to Helsinki.

You can see these same hooks on the support pillars of most bridges as well. Once you start paying attention to it you can’t really unsee it.

I’m not sure if this is something you’ll find an official source for as FDF isn’t known for openly sharing information regarding national defence.

However, you can find plenty of discussion about it online and for example on this video it’s mentioned around the 1:25 mark.

Payload only accounts for a small part of the missile’s cost. It’s still going to be really expensive for both parties.

Here’s a nearby railroad bridge with an opening left for the explosives instead of hooks. Different bridges use different methods.

Oh, c’mon now. People are individuals. You’re not really doing anyone any favors with these broad generalizations. Not all non-straight men are interesting, and not everyone who joined a fraternity is an NPC incapable of thinking for themselves. You can’t just take a massive group of people like that and treat them as if they’re all the same.

Which of those vehicles don’t even need to exist?

Waking up at 7am on weekends?