Its literally a false review, designed to counter the multiple negative real reviews that have been left recently. Its a false narrative designed to induce the reader into doubting the ture narrative of the other genuine reviews, or possibly even influence a potential reviewer by coloring their actual experience with the app. Definitely fits the definition you posted, even if its inconsistent with the example they gave.
Why couldn’t you just format the entire drive with the linux installer?
What is? How does a checkmark help distinguish between two people that have the same name? The checkmark just shows that the person is who they say they are.
People use usernames like they always have, and rely on reputation to distinguish themselves from the fakes? Senator ted ceuz makes an account called ‘senatortedcruz’ or if thats taken ‘therealsenatortedcruz’, and the mechanic makes one called ‘tedcruzcars’ or whatever. I dont see how your example is even relevant, because under a checkmark verification system both the mechanic ted cruz, and the senator ted cruz would be valid and deserving of a check mark, so there has to be some other way of distinguishing them anyway.
If they (the rich) dont grind your meat, they can’t have any pudding. How can they have any pudding if they don’t grind your meat?
I loved my car. Just had to scrap it recently. I got sad. I didnt go through withdrawal symptoms or feel like i was mourning a friend. You can appreciate something without building an emotional dependence on it. Im not particularly surprised this is happening to some people either, wspecially with the amount of brainrot out there surrounding these LLMs, so maybe bizarre is the wrong word , but it is a little disturbing that people are getting so attached to so.ething that is so fundamentally flawed.
If you actually read the article Im 0retty sure the bizzarre thing is really these people using a ‘tool’ forming a roxic parasocial relationship with it, becoming addicted and beginning to see it as a ‘friend’.
I mean this is a super unfair characterization of both of them. While Arthur conan doyle may have believed in the supernatural, he was also a practising doctor. And according to the article, Koch, who had many other accomplishments as well, didn’t present his discovery as a cure at all, and was quick to retract his statement when it didn’t show much therapeutic value. It seems like this was more about the hype over his treatment getting blown out of proportion.