Every bunker has at least one secondary "escape" hatch" in case the primary entrance is obstructed - generally it's buried and isolated/insulated from the thermal mass of the rest of the bunker so it doesn't show up on IR, but a metal detector will work wonders for finding them.
Terrible beaches in most of the country, if your standard is based on what you find in a travel brochure.
People are always shocked to find out that most WA and OR beaches are designated highways - and then they get there and see them it makes plenty of sense. Km on km of beach with fuck all there, 500m of dune covered in razor grass between you and the houses, occasional 1-inch fjords, the nice soft bits near the dunes sometimes have pits of quicksand, and the whole thing is you-have-to-shout windy and fucking FREEZING. And then theres how shit the beach itself is, which once you get past the dune areas (not highway, precious and beautiful ecology) is just several hundred meters of hard-packed sand or outright gravel and then blump. Ocean.
The nice bits of beach are all protected from vehicle traffic, the parts where you get good surfing waves or scenic vistas or are near a population center, but the vast majority of the coast is only ever visited to dig up clams or blow up dead whales.
Fedinsfw these days. RIP lemmynsfw, u were a good instance.
And if Ben Shapiro had posted the same thing, the meaning would fundementally change.
Calling out the source's potential biases is a good thing to do - if the initial commenter's sensitivity to context is higher than your own that's their choice, but it's not wrong for them to have that sensitivity or be vocal in expressing it, any more than it's wrong for you to have done so here, or for the OP on Twitter to have posted this in the first place.
Calling into question the credibility of a source is basic media literacy, though. An author comfortable associating themselves with a known fascist platform should be treated with extreme skepticism. The lib position is to ignore the credibility of the source in favor of the content on it's own - behavior you see all the time with articles from NYT, BBC, WAPO, TimesOfIsrael, etc...
This time someone did it to a source/take you happen to agree with, which doesn't make it bad for them to have done.
THANK YOU this was my first reaction as well, there's no grouping by type...
Fucking brutal.
Big shrug, I suppose?
(Wait, what entirely unrelated topic was I nitpicking? Genuinely confused, sorry)
You're welcome to address the "triple down" if you want - I only included it to explain the reasoning in the initial callout (i.e. the image has multiple clear artifacts of AI use - I was just wrong about the reason those artifacts happened). Apologies if you see that as a continuation of the hellbent inquisition but I am genuinely grateful for the more level-headed response.
AI does not give people a blanket performance bump - situationally it can be used in ways to enhance productivity in some tasks, I've had good success using it to chart out things like big database moves and some of the VM parts of MVVM builds - but that time savings is cut down heavily by having to hand check the results, and for many complex or especially novel tasks (very common with database/analysis tasks, not very common with MVVM tasks) they're absolute money-burning dogshit.
I think the pushback you're getting here is due to you being kinda abrasive about it, and glossing over the areas wherein AI is the aforementioned absolute money-burning dogshit. We'll undoubtedly be keeping AI in some ways - we can run it locally, there's open source models, etc. but this tech is getting fairly mature at this point, and we haven't found any new novel areas in which it's useful. It's shit for data analysis, every implementation of general agentic AI has been nothing but an expensive quagmire, image generation will never be profitable outside of simple models (and of course porn) but AI is situationally really quite useful as a code assistant, for infosec, for NLP/chatbots/image recognition and it will 100% be sticking around (in some forms) for all those use cases.
It's just not a black and white issue like many pro-AI folks here have been presenting it, and you've been deeply patronizing in your explanation of your perspective on the issue. Hence, pushback.
"For someone so hellbent on inquisitioning people for AI heresy" - I spent one sentence calling out a pretty obviously upscaled image. I didn't double down particularly hard, and I'll happily admit I was just wrong that it wasn't initially generated. You might wanna dial down the melodrama just a tad.
Seriously, there are plenty of visible upscaling artifacts:
(See also the grid in the smoke, the guy in the front left with three hands, etc...)
FWIW I'm sorry I called it AI generated - it just used the way more acceptable version of AI and I got it wrong - but can we talk about how insane your reaction just now was? Because that's hilariously extreme reaction to what is a minor thing.
further:
For reference here is the earliest HD version I can find of the original image used: You can see that the smoke is not fucky and geometric (although it is stripey, which I guess is why the AI did that), the dirt doesn't have random shapes in it, the wheels in the detonated tank are round (and aren't bunched together)
What's in the meme has pretty clearly been fucked with by AI. Original image is sick though, even though the KV-2 still sucks.
Or more for the big ones, assuming they didnt go the "massive hydraulic rams under a big rock" route.