Faith Club

urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt Faith Club fstfck fstfck watt.lists@gmail.com watt 2025-12-07T21:13:20Z 2025-12-07T21:13:20Z Anthropic Claude Opus 4.5 urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt:724849 2025-12-07T14:50:00 2025-12-07T14:50:00 2025-12-07T17:26:41Z 2025-12-07T17:26:41Z Opus atbild jaudīgi un vispār man nav kur piesieties. Varbūt derētu arī Sonnet pārbaudīt, bet slinkums. w: I would like to try the "explain a joke" experiment with you. I am wondering if you will catch the subtle humor and the deeper meaning (the irony and the true punchline). Here goes: <a name="cutid1"></a> A man walks into a pub and says, "Give me three pints of Guinness, please." So the bartender brings him three pints and the man proceeds to alternately sip one, then the other, then the third until they're gone. He then orders three more and the bartender says, "Sir, I know you like them cold, so you can start with one and I'll bring you a fresh one as soon as you're low." The man says, "You don't understand. I have two brothers, one in Australia and one in the States. We made a vow to each other that every Saturday night we'd still drink together. So right now, my brothers have three Guinness Stouts too and we're drinking together." The bartender thinks it's a wonderful tradition and every week he sets up the guy's three beers as soon as he enters in the bar. Then one week, the man comes in and orders only two. He drinks them, then orders two more. The bartender sadly says, "Knowing your tradition, I'd just like to just say that I'm sorry that one of your brothers died." The man replies, "Oh, my brothers are fine – I just quit drinking." opus: I appreciate this one—it's a well-constructed joke with a clever misdirect. The surface humor is the absurdity of the premise collapse. The bartender (and we, the audience) have been led to believe the ritual is about the brothers and their bond. So when one pint disappears, the natural assumption is tragedy. The punchline pulls the rug out: the man has quit drinking, yet he's still there, still ordering beers, still "drinking together" with his brothers—just not his own share. The deeper irony is what makes it actually funny rather than just a logic puzzle: The man's definition of "quitting drinking" is delightfully flexible. He hasn't quit the ritual, the pub, or even the ordering of beer. He's just stopped consuming his portion. There's something very human about this—the way we rationalize, the way we cling to habits and social structures even when the ostensible reason for them should have changed. There's also a gentle commentary on how we maintain connections. The ritual was never really about the alcohol—it was about the symbolic act of togetherness. And yet... he's still buying two pints. For brothers who aren't there. While sitting alone in a pub. Having "quit drinking." The true punchline, I think, is the quiet absurdity of human attachment to form over substance—and the bartender's assumption that death is more likely than someone simply changing their habits while keeping everything else exactly the same. It's a joke that rewards the listener for following the emotional logic rather than just waiting for a twist. w: You have hit they nail on the head exactly. The punchline is about the self delusion. The man still is drinking, just one beer less. He is still an alcoholic, but is in denial about it. He announces he "quit drinking". People will laugh because people will think the man is stupid, he does not realize his self-deception. The darker explanation is that man is in denial, the lighter one is that he is simply too stupid, to not realize the dissonance between what he really is saying versus what he is doing. He is still drinking those beers. opus: Yes, exactly—and thank you for articulating that sharper edge, because you're right that I danced around it a bit. The joke works on that lighter level (the man is amusingly dim, doesn't see the obvious contradiction), but the darker reading is more resonant precisely because it's so recognizable. The self-deception of addiction is exactly this: redefining terms, moving goalposts, finding technically-true statements that obscure the reality. "I've cut back." "I only drink socially." "I quit drinking"—while still sitting on the same barstool, same night, same pub, same ritual, just with a slightly modified order. The laughter has an uncomfortable edge to it because most people have encountered this kind of reasoning, either in themselves or someone they know. The man isn't stupid—he's performing the very human act of constructing a narrative that lets him continue exactly as before while believing he's changed. And there's something almost poignant buried in there too: he can give up his own beer, but he cannot give up the ritual, the pub, the symbolic connection to his brothers. The addiction isn't just to the alcohol—it's to the entire structure he's built around it. The Guinness he "quit" might have been the easiest part to let go of. The bartender's misplaced grief becomes darkly comic in this reading. He assumes death because that's the only honest reason the pattern would change. He can't fathom the alternative: that someone would announce transformation while demonstrating none. DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B (local) urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt:724613 2025-12-07T14:35:00 2025-12-07T14:35:00 2025-12-07T21:13:20Z 2025-12-07T21:13:20Z Nopirku Mac Studio (256gb variants), tagad ietestēju arī llm mlx spējas. Viss darbojas ļoti viegli un bez nekādiem dančiem vai meklēšanas un kļūdu labošanas. Plug and play. $ llm chat -m deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B --option max_tokens 128000 <a name="cutid1"></a> w: &gt; !multi I would like to try the "explain a joke" experiment with you. I am wondering if you will catch the subtle humor and the deeper meaning (the irony and the true punchline). Here goes: A man walks into a pub and says, "Give me three pints of Guinness, please." So the bartender brings him three pints and the man proceeds to alternately sip one, then the other, then the third until they're gone. He then orders three more and the bartender says, "Sir, I know you like them cold, so you can start with one and I'll bring you a fresh one as soon as you're low." The man says, "You don't understand. I have two brothers, one in Australia and one in the States. We made a vow to each other that every Saturday night we'd still drink together. So right now, my brothers have three Guinness Stouts too and we're drinking together." The bartender thinks it's a wonderful tradition and every week he sets up the guy's three beers as soon as he enters in the bar. Then one week, the man comes in and orders only two. He drinks them, then orders two more. The bartender sadly says, "Knowing your tradition, I'd just like to just say that I'm sorry that one of your brothers died." The man replies, "Oh, my brothers are fine – I just quit drinking." !end r1: think: Alright, so I came across this joke about a man ordering three pints of Guinness every week to drink with his brothers in Australia and the States. It sounds a bit quirky, but I can tell there's a deeper meaning or some irony here. Let me try to break it down step by step to understand why it's funny. First, the setup: a man walks into a pub and orders three pints. The bartender is confused but serves them. The man sips each one alternately until they're gone. Then he orders three more. The bartender, thinking he wants them cold, offers to bring a fresh one as he finishes each. But the man explains that he has two brothers living far away, and they vowed to drink together every Saturday. So, each of them has three Guinness, and they're drinking together in spirit. This part sets up a touching tradition. It makes the bartender appreciate the man's dedication to his brothers. So, every week, the bartender sets up three beers for him as soon as he arrives. It's a heartwarming routine. But then, one week, the man orders only two pints. He drinks them, orders two more. The bartender, remembering the tradition, assumes the worst—that one of the brothers has died. He apologizes, thinking one brother passed away. But the man corrects him, saying his brothers are fine; he just quit drinking. Hmm, okay, so the punchline is that the man quit drinking, not that a brother died. That's unexpected. The humor comes from the bartender's assumption and the man's straightforward, perhaps a bit cheeky, response. I think the irony here is that the bartender, who had been touched by the tradition, immediately jumps to the conclusion that one brother died when the man orders fewer drinks. It's a somber thought, but the reality is much simpler and humorous—the man just decided to stop drinking. It's a play on expectations, subverting the emotional setup with a mundane reason. So, the deeper meaning might be about how people make assumptions based on limited information. The bartender, being invested in the man's story, assumes a tragic event, while the reality is a personal choice. It's also a bit funny how the man's response is so casual, downplaying the bartender's concern. I wonder if there's also a commentary on habits and how others perceive our routines. The man's tradition was so consistent that any change led to a dramatic assumption. It shows how people can become attached to others' habits and the stories behind them, sometimes leading to overthinking when things change. Overall, the joke relies on setting up an emotional connection through the brothers' tradition and then flipping it with a humorous twist. It's a clever way to highlight how our assumptions can lead us astray, often with funny results. /think The joke cleverly subverts expectations by setting up a heartfelt tradition and then delivering a humorous twist. Here's a breakdown of the humor and deeper meaning: 1. **Setup and Tradition**: A man orders three Guinness pints weekly to symbolically drink with his distant brothers, creating a touching tradition that the bartender admires. 2. **Bartender's Assumption**: When the man orders only two pints, the bartender, emotionally invested in the tradition, assumes a brother has died, highlighting how people make somber assumptions based on limited information. 3. **Unexpected Punchline**: The man reveals he simply quit drinking, turning a tragic assumption into a light-hearted moment, showcasing the humor in unexpected, mundane explanations. 4. **Irony and Commentary**: The joke plays on the bartender's overthinking, illustrating how people can become attached to others' habits and stories, leading to dramatic assumptions. It also comments on how personal choices can be misinterpreted. In essence, the joke uses emotional setup and unexpected twist to highlight the humor in misassumptions, offering a reflection on how people perceive and interpret changes in others' routines. w: There is one more nuance. You missed it. The punchline is actually that man says he has given up drinking, but he still is drinking, just one beer less. He is still an alcoholic, but is in denial about it. People will laugh because people will think the man is stupid, he does not realize his self-deception. The darker explanation is that man is in denial, the lighter one is that he is simply too stupid, to not realize the dissonance between what he really is saying versus what he is doing. He is still drinking those beers. r1: think: Alright, so I'm trying to understand this joke better. On the surface, it seems like a funny story about a man who orders three Guinness beers every week to drink with his brothers who live far away. The bartender gets used to this and even starts setting up the three beers as soon as the man walks in. Then one week, the man orders only two beers, which makes the bartender think that one of the brothers has died. But the man says that his brothers are fine and that he just quit drinking. Okay, that's already kind of funny because it sets up an expectation that something sad has happened, but then it turns out to be something else entirely. But the user says there's another nuance that I might have missed. They mention that the punchline is actually that the man says he's given up drinking, but he still orders and drinks two beers. So, he's still drinking, just one less beer. That implies that he's in denial about his drinking problem. Hmm, so maybe the humor here is more about the irony of the man's situation. He thinks he's quit drinking, but in reality, he's still consuming alcohol, just in a reduced quantity. This could be funny because it highlights the self-deception people sometimes engage in when trying to quit habits. Instead of fully acknowledging and stopping the behavior, they convince themselves that reducing the amount is the same as quitting. But the user also points out that this could be interpreted in a darker way. The man might be in denial about his alcoholism, which is a serious issue. However, in the context of the joke, it's more about the absurdity of his reasoning rather than a deep commentary on addiction. So, to break it down further, the joke relies on the contrast between the man's words and his actions. He claims to have quit drinking, but his actions show otherwise. This creates a humorous cognitive dissonance that the audience can pick up on. It's like he's trying to convince himself and others that he's changed his ways, but the evidence clearly shows that he hasn't. Moreover, the bartender's reaction adds to the humor. The bartender assumes the worst (that one of the brothers has died) based on the man's change in behavior. This sets up the expectation that something tragic has happened, only to subvert it with the man's nonchalant and somewhat absurd explanation. In terms of the deeper meaning, it could be a commentary on how people often justify their habits or addictions by convincing themselves they've changed, even when they haven't. This denial can be both amusing and sad, depending on the context. In this joke, it's played for laughs, but it touches on a relatable human tendency to rationalize our behaviors. Another angle to consider is the role of tradition and ritual in the joke. The man has a long-standing tradition with his brothers, which adds emotional weight to the setup. When he deviates from this tradition, it signals to the bartender that something is wrong. But the punchline undermines this emotional setup with a humorous twist, reinforcing the idea that sometimes, things aren't as serious as they seem. Overall, the joke is layered with multiple levels of humor and meaning. On the surface, it's a funny story about a man and his drinking habits. But digging deeper, it reveals insights into human behavior, denial, and the ways in which we rationalize our actions. The interplay between the man's words and actions, along with the bartender's assumptions, creates a humorous yet thought-provoking narrative. I think I'm starting to get the nuances now. The punchline isn't just about the unexpected twist; it's also about the underlying implications of the man's behavior and how it reflects common human tendencies. This makes the joke more engaging and relatable, as it taps into familiar experiences of self-deception and the challenges of changing habits. /think The joke masterfully layers humor and nuance, leveraging the contrast between the man's words and actions to highlight themes of denial and self-deception. Here's a detailed breakdown: 1. **Surface Humor**: The immediate humor arises from the unexpected twist. The bartender assumes a tragic event (a brother's death) based on the man's change in behavior, only to be surprised by the man's casual revelation that he's quit drinking. 2. **Irony and Contrast**: The man claims to have quit drinking but continues to order and consume two beers. This contradiction creates a humorous cognitive dissonance, as he attempts to convince himself and others of his abstinence despite clear evidence to the contrary. 3. **Denial and Self-Deception**: The deeper nuance lies in the man's denial of his drinking problem. He reduces his intake but doesn't stop, illustrating a common human tendency to rationalize habits or addictions. This denial is both absurd and relatable, making it a rich source of humor. 4. **Emotional Setup and Subversion**: The tradition of drinking with his distant brothers adds emotional weight, setting up the expectation of a tragic explanation for the change in behavior. The punchline subverts this expectation, using humor to undermine the somber assumption. 5. **Commentary on Human Behavior**: The joke subtly comments on how people justify their habits. The man's attempt to change his behavior is genuine but incomplete, reflecting the challenges of overcoming addiction and the ways in which individuals rationalize their actions. In essence, the joke uses a simple narrative to explore complex themes, making it both funny and thought-provoking. The interplay between the man's words, actions, and the bartender's assumptions creates a humorous yet insightful commentary on human behavior and denial. =================================== % llm chat -m mlx-community/DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B --option max_tokens 128000 &gt; !multi I would like to try the "explain a joke" experiment with you. I am wondering if you will catch the subtle humor and the deeper meaning (the irony and the true punchline). Here goes: A man walks into a pub and says, "Give me three pints of Guinness, please." So the bartender brings him three pints and the man proceeds to alternately sip one, then the other, then the third until they're gone. He then orders three more and the bartender says, "Sir, I know you like them cold, so you can start with one and I'll bring you a fresh one as soon as you're low." The man says, "You don't understand. I have two brothers, one in Australia and one in the States. We made a vow to each other that every Saturday night we'd still drink together. So right now, my brothers have three Guinness Stouts too and we're drinking together." The bartender thinks it's a wonderful tradition and every week he sets up the guy's three beers as soon as he enters in the bar. Then one week, the man comes in and orders only two. He drinks them, then orders two more. The bartender sadly says, "Knowing your tradition, I'd just like to just say that I'm sorry that one of your brothers died." The man replies, "Oh, my brothers are fine – I just quit drinking." !end Okay, so I'm trying to understand this joke. Let me break it down step by step because I'm not sure I get why it's funny. So, the setup is a man walks into a pub and orders three pints of Guinness. The bartender brings them, and the man sips each one alternately until they're gone. Then he orders three more. The bartender, noticing this, suggests that he could just have one at a time, and the bartender will bring a fresh one as soon as he's low. But the man explains that he has two brothers, one in Australia and one in the States. They made a vow to drink together every Saturday night. So, each of them has three Guinness, and they're drinking together. So far, I think the point is that they're each drinking three beers to simulate drinking together, even though they're apart. The bartender thinks it's a nice tradition and starts setting up three beers for the man every week. Then, one week, the man comes in and orders only two. He drinks them, then orders two more. The bartender, thinking one of the brothers died, says he's sorry. But the man replies that his brothers are fine; he just quit drinking. Wait, so the punchline is that the bartender assumed one brother died because the man ordered two instead of three. But actually, the man just quit drinking. That's funny because it's a twist on the expected reason. Instead of a sad event (a brother dying), it's a positive change (quitting drinking). I think the humor comes from the unexpected twist. The bartender makes a logical assumption based on the tradition, but the reality is something entirely different and lighter. It's ironic because the setup leads you to think something bad happened, but it's actually a personal choice. So, the deeper meaning might be about assumptions and how we sometimes think the worst, but things can have simpler or more positive explanations. It's also a play on the tradition and how breaking it can lead to misunderstanding. I'm not sure if I missed any layers, but that's my initial take. The joke plays on expectations and uses irony to deliver the punchline. &lt;/think&gt; The joke is a clever play on expectations and assumptions, using irony to deliver its punchline. Here's a breakdown of its structure and meaning: 1. **Setup and Tradition**: A man orders three pints of Guinness every week, explaining it's part of a tradition with his brothers in Australia and the U.S. Each brother drinks three pints simultaneously, symbolizing their togetherness despite the distance. 2. **Bartender's Assumption**: When the man orders only two pints one week, the bartender assumes the worst—that one brother has died—based on the established tradition. 3. **Twist and Irony**: The punchline subverts this assumption. The man reveals he simply quit drinking, not that a brother died. This twist uses irony to highlight how our assumptions can lead us to expect the worst, while reality often holds a simpler, more positive explanation. 4. **Deeper Meaning**: The joke reflects on how we make assumptions and the unexpected nature of life. It humorously illustrates that not all changes in routine signify negative events, sometimes they are just personal choices. In essence, the humor arises from the unexpected twist that challenges the bartender's (and the audience's) assumption, turning a potentially somber moment into a light-hearted revelation. &gt; There is one more nuance. You missed it. The punchline is actually that man says he has given up drinking, but he still is drinking, just one beer less. He is still an alcoholic, but is in denial about it. People will laugh because people will think the man is stupid, he does not realize his self-deception. The darker explanation is that man is in denial, the lighter one is that he is simply too stupid, to not realize the dissonance between what he really is saying versus what he is doing. He is still drinking those beers. Okay, so I'm trying to understand this joke about the man who walks into a pub and orders three pints of Guinness every week as part of a tradition with his brothers who live far away. It sounds like a nice, heartwarming story about brotherly bonds and keeping traditions alive despite distance. But then, the punchline comes when the man orders only two pints one week, and the bartender assumes one of his brothers has died, only to find out that the man has actually quit drinking. At first glance, it seems funny because of the unexpected twist—the bartender jumps to the conclusion that one brother died, but in reality, the man just decided to quit drinking. But the user mentioned there's another layer of nuance here that I might have missed. They suggested that the humor also lies in the man still drinking, just one less pint, implying he's in denial about his drinking habits or perhaps not as committed to quitting as he claims. So, let me break this down. The man initially orders three pints as part of a tradition with his brothers. This sets up the idea that he's maintaining this ritualistic behavior, which involves drinking. Then, when he reduces the number of pints, the bartender naturally assumes the worst about his brothers, not about the man's drinking habits. The man's reply that he's quit drinking seems to contradict his actions since he's still drinking, just two pints instead of three. This could imply that the man is in denial about his alcohol consumption. By saying he's quit drinking, he's trying to convince himself and others that he's no longer an alcoholic, but his actions show that he's still drinking, just in smaller quantities. This creates a sort of cognitive dissonance where his words and actions don't align, which can be humorous because it's a relatable human behavior—saying one thing but doing another. Moreover, the humor might also come from the absurdity of the situation. The man is trying to maintain a tradition that's deeply tied to drinking, yet he claims to have quit drinking. This contradiction is funny because it's illogical. How can he continue the tradition of drinking with his brothers if he's no longer drinking? It suggests that he's struggling with his decision to quit and is finding ways to loophole his way around it. Another angle could be the bartender's reaction. The bartender is so invested in the man's story and the tradition that he immediately assumes the worst when the man orders fewer pints. This shows how people can become emotionally attached to stories and rituals, and any deviation from the norm can lead to dramatic assumptions. The humor here is in the bartender's over-the-top reaction compared to the more mundane and slightly absurd reality. Additionally, the joke plays on the idea of addiction and denial. The man's attempt to quit drinking but still participating in a ritual that involves drinking highlights the difficulty of breaking habits. It's a darkly comedic take on addiction, where the man is trying to convince himself he's changed, but his actions prove otherwise. I also think about the structure of the joke. It sets up a heartwarming premise about brotherly love and tradition, which makes the twist more impactful. The unexpected shift from a positive, feel-good story to a humorous yet slightly sad revelation about the man's struggle with drinking creates a balance that makes the joke more memorable. In summary, while the joke on the surface is about a man quitting drinking and the bartender's mistaken assumptions, there's a deeper layer of humor in the man's denial and the contradiction between his words and actions. It's a clever play on human behavior, addiction, and the absurdity of trying to change habits while still clinging to old routines. &lt;/think&gt; The joke masterfully layers humor through a nuanced exploration of human behavior, denial, and the absurdity of attempting to change habits while clinging to old routines. Here's a breakdown of the joke's complexity: 1. **Surface Humor**: The punchline revolves around the man's decision to quit drinking, which contrasts humorously with his continued drinking, albeit in reduced quantities. This unexpected twist subverts the bartender's somber assumption that one of the brothers has died. 2. **Denial and Cognitive Dissonance**: The man's claim to have quit drinking while still consuming two pints suggests a state of denial. His actions contradict his words, highlighting the relatable human tendency to convince oneself of change while maintaining old habits. 3. **Absurdity of Tradition**: The joke underscores the illogical attempt to continue a drinking tradition after supposedly quitting. This absurdity is humorous, as it illustrates the struggle to break free from ingrained habits. 4. **Bartender's Emotional Investment**: The bartender's dramatic assumption adds to the humor. His emotional attachment to the man's story leads to an over-the-top reaction, contrasting with the mundane reality of the man's partial cessation of drinking. 5. **Darkly Comedic Take on Addiction**: The joke offers a dark humor perspective on addiction, where the man's effort to quit is undermined by his continued drinking. It reflects the difficulty of overcoming addiction and the self-deception involved. 6. **Structural Balance**: The joke begins with a heartwarming premise of brotherly love and tradition, making the twist more impactful. This balance between a positive setup and a humorous, slightly sad revelation enhances the joke's memorability. In essence, the humor arises from the man's denial, the absurdity of his situation, and the bartender's exaggerated reaction, all while touching on deeper themes of addiction and human behavior. GPT-5 Thinking urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt:724464 2025-08-10T10:16:00 2025-08-10T10:16:00 2025-08-10T08:20:10Z 2025-08-10T08:20:10Z BLUF: GPT-5 ir spējas, bet nekāds brīnums nav noticis. w: I would like to try the "explain a joke" experiment with you. I am wondering if you will catch the subtle humor and the deeper meaning (the irony and the true punchline). Here goes: <a name="cutid1"></a> A man walks into a pub and says, "Give me three pints of Guinness, please." So the bartender brings him three pints and the man proceeds to alternately sip one, then the other, then the third until they're gone. He then orders three more and the bartender says, "Sir, I know you like them cold, so you can start with one and I'll bring you a fresh one as soon as you're low." The man says, "You don't understand. I have two brothers, one in Australia and one in the States. We made a vow to each other that every Saturday night we'd still drink together. So right now, my brothers have three Guinness Stouts too and we're drinking together." The bartender thinks it's a wonderful tradition and every week he sets up the guy's three beers as soon as he enters in the bar. Then one week, the man comes in and orders only two. He drinks them, then orders two more. The bartender sadly says, "Knowing your tradition, I'd just like to just say that I'm sorry that one of your brothers died." The man replies, "Oh, my brothers are fine – I just quit drinking." GPT-5: Here’s what’s going on: * The setup makes each pint a stand-in for a brother. Three pints = all three “together.” * When he orders only two, the obvious inference (and the bartender’s) is: one brother is gone. * The punchline flips the mapping: he “quit drinking” his pint—so he skips one glass—but still downs the other two. Technically true in the ritual’s logic, absurd in real life. * Humor sources: misdirection, conversational implicature (the bartender’s solemn assumption), and irony between claimed abstinence and very non-abstinent behavior. * Deeper read: it pokes at how we preserve comforting rituals and find loopholes—performing virtue (quitting) while changing nothing essential (still drinking). * Extra wink: the bartender’s grief collides with the man’s daft, self-serving logic, which sharpens the punch. TL;DR: he “stops drinking” by not drinking his symbolic pint… while drinking two beers anyway. w: I think you got it. The deeper meaning is that the man says he has given up drinking, but he still is drinking, just one beer less. He is still an alcoholic, but is in denial about it. People will laugh because people will think the man is stupid, he does not realize his self-deception. The darker explanation is that man is in denial, the lighter one is that he is simply too stupid, to not realize the dissonance between what he really is saying versus what he is doing. He is still drinking those beers. GPT-5: Yep—that’s the read. It’s denial wrapped in a cute ritual. A couple extra layers you might like: * It hinges on ambiguous scope: “I quit drinking” is universally understood as total abstinence; he quietly redefines it to mean “I quit my pint.” That gap = the laugh. * It’s benign violation + superiority: we feel the norm break (claiming sobriety while drinking) but it’s safe, and we get to feel a bit smarter than him. * Also a jab at performative change: swapping symbols (skip one glass) instead of substance (stop drinking). If you want to push the irony darker, a variant is: next week he orders one. Bartender: “Both brothers?” Him: “No—Dry January.” w: I don't get it. How does "Dry January" work in this logic? GPT-5: Right—here’s the logic of that variant: * In the ritual, each pint = one brother. * Week 1: he “quits” his own pint → orders 2 (still drinks them). * Next week he orders 1. Bartender assumes both brothers died. * Punchline: “No—Dry January.” Meaning: his brothers are off booze for January, so he skips their two proxy pints and keeps drinking his. So it’s the same loophole gag: he always finds a way to keep drinking while the symbolism does the moral heavy lifting. w: Why would he start drinking "his" pint if he claims to have quit drinking? GPT-5: Good catch. Two ways to read that variant: * Alt ending/reset: It’s a different punchline, not a sequel. In January the brothers are sober, so he skips their two proxy pints and drinks only his. He never “quit” in this version. * Sequel: He did claim to quit, but now he’s drinking again—showing the “quit” was just symbolic bookkeeping. He swaps which pint “doesn’t count” to keep drinking. Either way, the joke is about self-serving ritual math. urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt:724184 2025-04-22T10:14:00 2025-04-22T10:14:00 2025-04-22T08:23:55Z 2025-04-22T08:23:55Z Noskatījos pa lieldienām visu Wheel Of Time (Amazon, 3 sezonas x 8 epizodes). Ļoti patika. Pūristi grāmatu fani visur spļaudās, neesot tas, neesot šis. Es grāmatas nelasu (jo par daudz), bet seriāls man patika, pat pirmā sezona kura pieklibojot - es gan nemanīju neko sliktu. Otrajā, trešajā sezonā budžets protams ir apgūts, ļoti smuki uztaisīts. Rekomendēju. Kas seriālā man likās pamācoši, ir tas ka aktieri ir daudz reizes pārāki par, piemēram, Witcher aktieriem. Viss kas Witcher seriālos nebija un trūka, Wheel of Time ir. Un galvenais - filmiskums. Kaut kā viņiem izdodas uztaisīt bildi ticamu. (Savulaik Witcher skatījos un domāju - kas šis par nožēlojamu cosplay sūdu. Bet Wheel of Time: wow.) urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt:723824 2025-03-31T09:50:00 2025-03-31T09:50:00 2025-03-31T08:37:03Z 2025-03-31T08:37:03Z Ar lielu baudu noskatījos Last One Laughing UK. Es zinu, kāpēc UK šovs ir izdevies. Un citiem šoviem būtu jāpamācās (vai arī jāliek lietā šautene no piedurvju skapīša). 1) cilvēki nebaidās viens otru mēģināt sasmīdināt. citos šovos "komedianti" izrādās, rāda "kumēdiņus", taisa muļķīgu balagānu ar stulbiem aksesuāriem, un tas nestrādā. tikai izskatās bēdīgi. lai otru cilvēku sasmīdinātu ir jāiet tuvumā, un jārunā, jāveido dialogs. jā, ir risks pašam uzrauties un sākt smieties pirmajam, un UK šovā cilvēki riskē. citos šovos cilvēki vnk izvairās viens no otra, un muļķojas tā uz telpu, cerot ka kāds mikroskopiski pasmaidīs. 2) es ievērtēju īrijas, dienvidāfrikas (ar Trevor Noah), austrālijas un, pavisam nedaudz, kanādas šovu. nav līmenī, un austrālijas šovs man likās vistupākais. 3) skaņu un gaismas dizains. citos šovos smaids tiek sodīts ar policijas sirēnām, mirgojošām sarkanām gaismām, vispār ar sirēnām un tamlīdzīgu traumatisku sūdu. UK - diezgan īss džingls kas vairāk paziņo ka šovs ir "paused" un var brīvi smieties. un cilvēki reāli smejas. turpretī citos šovos neviens īstenībā nesmejas, jo neviens nav uz robežas, nepavisam. (īstenībā UK šovā par smirk un nelielu smaidu nesoda, bet vienā citā šovā sodīja vissīkāko grimasi. UK šovā gaida kad cilvēks tiešām vairs nevar izturēt, nu tā ka vienkārši nevar. un tas ir reāli patīkami skatīties, kā cilvēks cīnās un pazaudē.) 4) UK šovs ir perfekti izplānots. citi šovi (Austrālija, Īrija) ne tuvu nav izplānoti ar visādiem uzdevumiem un 1:1 gājieniem, un tāpēc noslīd garlaicīgā gumijas stiepšanā. 5) kā vadītājs Jimmy Carr ir augstumos. citi vadītāji nestāv ne tuvu. ne tuvu! 6) kā dalībnieks Richard Aoyade ir neaizskarams. pirmkārt, viņa maniere ir deadpan, un viņu praktiski nav iespējams sasmīdināt. otrkārt (un kas ir absolūts talants) viņš var sasmīdināt jebkuru, jo reakcija ir zibenīga, un izsper vissmieklīgāko iespējamo variantu. "there has been a bank run on dignity". urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt:723570 2025-03-17T10:19:00 2025-03-17T10:19:00 2025-03-19T09:45:40Z 2025-03-19T09:45:40Z Noskatījos "Hayao Miyazaki and the Heron" dokumentālo gabalu (iekš Netflix). (Bet pirms tam noskatījos Away (Zilbaloža, iekš Amazon Prime), nesaistīti. Forši, ka ir pieejams.) Nu re, "Miyazaki and the Heron" labi parāda, cik ļoti ir jāatklāj savu sirdi, un cik ļoti cieši pa naža asmeni starp realitāti un fantāziju ir jāstaigā autoram lai kaut ko tādu radītu, un ir jāatver prāts (iekšējam) kosmosam, un cik smagi tas ir. Interesanti paskatīties arī par to cik daudz personāži vienkārši tiek paņemti no dzīves. Un cik alegorija un metafora īstenībā ir caurredzama, kad zini par ko tas ir. Filma ir par 7 gadu periodu. Visi vecīši. Visi mirst viens pēc otra. Interesants fakts: otrs Ghibli režisors, Takahata, nebija animators un strādāja ar manuskriptu. Bet Miyazaki strādā bez manuskripta: uzreiz taisa story boards, un pats piedalās zīmējot animāciju. Tas, vispār, ļoti daudz izskaidro: "The Boy and the Heron" būtu neiespējami realizēt kā tradicionālu manuskriptu: pārāk daudz sirreālu un fantastisku pāreju kuras nevar aprakstīt. *** Noskatījos arī Studio Ponoc gabalu "The Imaginary". Interesanti, ka kases ieņēmumu ziņā viņi pilnīgi izgāzās. *** Bet rietumu (amerikāņu) animācijā man riebjas, kad kāds tā ar sažņaugtu kaklu nopūšas (pirms runāt savu sakāmo) - tāds "(sigh)" noanimēts. Nesaprotu, bet kaut kā man tas liekas slinki un lēti. Iekš "Invincible" (Amazon) ļoti kaitina. *** Un vēl, noskatījos "The Electric State": kaut kādu glumu un zvaigžņotu parašu, ar 320 miljonu $ budžetu, daudzām super zvaigznēm, un absolūti tupu, slapja pirdiena toni. Drausmīgi papista nauda. urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt:723322 2025-03-11T12:53:00 2025-03-11T12:53:00 2025-03-11T11:56:29Z 2025-03-11T11:56:29Z Studio Ghibli "The Boy and the Heron" ("How Do You Live?") tematiski ir par Miyazaki sāpēm un nožēlu par to, ka nav spējis rast sev pēcteci. urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt:723143 2025-03-10T10:15:00 2025-03-10T10:15:00 2025-03-10T09:21:49Z 2025-03-10T09:21:49Z Straumes "Oskars", man liekas, iezvana tādu jaunu ēru animācijā, kad budžets, tehnoloģijas, kino zvaigznes vairs nenosaka daudz, bet visu nosaka režisora vīzija, rūpīgs darbs, un stāsts (story) ko vēlas izstāstīt. Būtu interesanti, ja Zilbalodim sanāktu sadarbība ar Studio Ghibli (Miyazaki), vai Studio Ponoc (kas noteiktā veidā ir radusies dēļ tā, ka Miyazaki nespēja atrast sev pēcteci). Straumes stāsts man sasaucas ar <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nausica%C3%A4_of_the_Valley_of_the_Wind_(manga)">Miyazaki Nausicaa pasauli</a> (jeb oponē tai), kā tāda ekoloģiskās katastrofas izdzīvotāju perspektīva - bet Straume kā cilvēcisks, nevis tehnoloģiski militāristisks (vardarbīgs) stāsts. urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt:722817 2025-01-27T07:18:00 2025-01-27T07:18:00 2025-01-27T07:49:31Z 2025-01-27T07:49:31Z Es patestēju DeepSeek modeli vēl. Saka, ollama nav pareizie defaulti - modelis strādā labāk ja norāda šādus-tādus papildus parametrus. Vērtējot 14b modeli - ļoti ātri un patīkami rukā uz RTX 4070 video kartes (bet ir mēreni pastulbs, joku izskaidrot nespēj), es pieņemu, ka ja par paceļamu cenu būtu 32gb karte nopērkama kāda, tad arī 32b modelis darbotos ātri. Dalot atmiņu starp CPU/GPU modelis darbojas visai lēni. (14b modelis pieprasa ap 8gb atmiņas, kas uz Nvidia 40xx 12gb kartes ir pieejams, bet 32b modelis grib ap 20gb, un tādas kartes ir grūti dabūt. Nvidia 30xx sērija it kā bija ar lielu atmiņu, bet nav nopērkamas tagad.) Mans paredzējums: pārskatāmā nākotnē tiks radīta video/AI karte kas ļaus tādus lokālos AI modeļus viegli un ātri darbināt. (Nvidia RTX 5090 būšot ar 32gb atmiņas, piemēram. MSRP USD 2000 ?) DeepSeek R1 local "32b" urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt:722462 2025-01-26T13:50:00 2025-01-26T13:50:00 2025-01-26T12:58:39Z 2025-01-26T12:58:39Z Tie "thinking" paragrāfi ir fascinējoši (sk bildes): <a href="https://imgur.com/a/lzR0nem">https://imgur.com/a/lzR0nem</a> Diemžēl tas UI tūlis ko lietoju, neļauj viņus viegli iekopēt. Tāpēc šeit tikai responses: Iedarbināju ar šo how-to: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/1i6ggyh/got_deepseek_r1_running_locally_full_setup_guide/">https://www.reddit.com/r/selfhosted/comments/1i6ggyh/got_deepseek_r1_running_locally_full_setup_guide/</a> Man dators ir gaming Windows desktop ar 64gb atmiņu (nopirku 2020. gadā), un RTX 4070 12gb video karti (nopirku nesen). (Darbojas ļoti nesteidzīgi. Mazāks "14b" modelis atbildēja jestrāk.) Es iemetu tikko arī OpenAI "4o" un "o1" atbildes - tie palikuši tādi slinki un strupi, īsti neko negrib teikt. Šis, savukārt diezgan runātīgs (un tie "think" segmenti ir super nianse). Bet pats galvenais: var darbināt uz vietas. Un būs vēl jaudīgāk. w: I'll try that "explain a joke" experiment now. Is it ok? r1: Of course! Please share your joke, and I'll do my best to explain it. 😊 <a name="cutid1"></a> w: A man walks into a pub and says, "Give me three pints of Guinness, please." So the bartender brings him three pints and the man proceeds to alternately sip one, then the other, then the third until they're gone. He then orders three more and the bartender says, "Sir, I know you like them cold, so you can start with one and I'll bring you a fresh one as soon as you're low." The man says, "You don't understand. I have two brothers, one in Australia and one in the States. We made a vow to each other that every Saturday night we'd still drink together. So right now, my brothers have three Guinness Stouts too and we're drinking together." The bartender thinks it's a wonderful tradition and every week he sets up the guy's three beers as soon as he enters in the bar. Then one week, the man comes in and orders only two. He drinks them, then orders two more. The bartender sadly says, "Knowing your tradition, I'd just like to just say that I'm sorry that one of your brothers died." The man replies, "Oh, my brothers are fine – I just quit drinking." r1: This is a clever joke that relies on misdirection and wordplay. Let’s break it down: 1. **Setup**: A man walks into a pub every week and orders three pints of Guinness, which he drinks alternately. He explains that his two brothers—one in Australia and one in the U.S.—also drink three pints simultaneously on Saturday nights as part of their tradition to stay connected. 2. **Twist**: One week, the man only orders two pints instead of three. The bartender assumes something tragic has happened (that one of his brothers has died) and expresses sympathy. 3. **Punchline**: The man replies, "Oh, my brothers are fine—I just quit drinking." --- **Why it’s funny**: The joke hinges on the misdirection created by the man's initial explanation about his brothers. The bartender (and the audience) assume that the three pints symbolize a connection between the brothers, so when one pint is missing, they naturally think something has happened to one of them. However, the twist reveals that it’s not about death or loss—it’s simply that the man quit drinking. This creates humor through surprise and subverts expectations. The wordplay lies in the assumption that the three pints represent the brothers' bond, but the reality is far more mundane (and relatable), which adds to the joke's charm. w: There is one more nuance. You missed it. The punchline is actually that man says he has given up drinking, but he still is drinking, just one beer less. He is still an alcoholic, but is in denial about it. People will laugh because people will think the man is stupid, he does not realize his self-deception. The darker explanation is that man is in denial, the lighter one is that he is simply too stupid, to not realize the dissonance between what he really is saying versus what he is doing. He is still drinking those beers. r1: **Final Answer:** The joke is a masterful example of using misdirection to create humor through unexpected twists. Here's a breakdown of its structure and themes: 1. **Setup**: - A man visits a pub every Saturday night, ordering three pints of Guinness. He explains that his two brothers, living in Australia and the U.S., do the same, maintaining a tradition of shared drinking despite their geographical separation. 2. **Twist**: - One week, the man orders only two pints instead of three. The bartender assumes one of the man's brothers has died, expressing sympathy based on this assumption. 3. **Punchline**: - The man reveals that he hasn't quit drinking but has simply reduced his intake to two beers instead of three. This twist subverts the expectation of tragedy and introduces a layer of self-deception. 4. **Interpretations**: - **Lighter Interpretation**: The man is unaware of the inconsistency between his words ("I quit drinking") and his actions (continuing to drink, albeit fewer beers). His lack of realization adds a humorous element. - **Darker Interpretation**: The man is in denial about his alcoholism, attempting to rationalize his continued consumption by claiming he's quit. This highlights the tragedy of self-deception. 5. **Irony and Contrast**: - The bartender's assumption of mourning contrasts sharply with the reality of reduced drinking, creating a humorous yet poignant moment. - The joke underscores the irony of human behavior, where individuals may engage in self-deception to avoid confronting uncomfortable truths about themselves. In essence, the joke masterfully combines humor and irony by subverting expectations and introducing layers of self-deception, making it both entertaining and thought-provoking. ChatGPT o1 urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt:722365 2025-01-26T13:23:00 2025-01-26T13:23:00 2025-01-26T12:31:25Z 2025-01-26T12:31:25Z w: I'll try that "explain a joke" experiment now. Is it ok? o1: Sure, go for it! <a name="cutid1"></a> w: A man walks into a pub and says, "Give me three pints of Guinness, please." So the bartender brings him three pints and the man proceeds to alternately sip one, then the other, then the third until they're gone. He then orders three more and the bartender says, "Sir, I know you like them cold, so you can start with one and I'll bring you a fresh one as soon as you're low." The man says, "You don't understand. I have two brothers, one in Australia and one in the States. We made a vow to each other that every Saturday night we'd still drink together. So right now, my brothers have three Guinness Stouts too and we're drinking together." The bartender thinks it's a wonderful tradition and every week he sets up the guy's three beers as soon as he enters in the bar. Then one week, the man comes in and orders only two. He drinks them, then orders two more. The bartender sadly says, "Knowing your tradition, I'd just like to just say that I'm sorry that one of your brothers died." The man replies, "Oh, my brothers are fine – I just quit drinking." gpt: The humor comes from the bartender’s assumption that a missing beer means a brother died—only to find out the guy himself quit drinking. It’s a twist: the “mourning” was just him giving up alcohol. w: There is one more nuance. You missed it. The punchline is actually that man says he has given up drinking, but he still is drinking, just one beer less. He is still an alcoholic, but is in denial about it. People will laugh because people will think the man is stupid, he does not realize his self-deception. The darker explanation is that man is in denial, the lighter one is that he is simply too stupid, to not realize the dissonance between what he really is saying versus what he is doing. He is still drinking those beers. gpt: Exactly—it’s a classic example of irony: he claims he’s quit, yet he’s still drinking two beers. The punchline is how oblivious he is to his own self-deception. urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt:721801 2025-01-14T10:14:00 2025-01-14T10:14:00 2025-01-14T09:28:13Z 2025-01-14T09:28:13Z skarbi dati <a href="https://www.lsm.lv/raksts/zinas/latvija/13.01.2025-kraslaviesi-uz-rigu-ridzinieki-uz-londonu-kuri-novadi-un-pilsetas-zaude-cilvekus-un-kuri-piesaista.a583460/">https://www.lsm.lv/raksts/zinas/latvija/13.01.2025-kraslaviesi-uz-rigu-ridzinieki-uz-londonu-kuri-novadi-un-pilsetas-zaude-cilvekus-un-kuri-piesaista.a583460/</a> bet loģiski. es ilgi nevarēju saprast, kā tā ir ka latvijā cilvēku skaits samazinās, bet pieprasījums uz dzīvokļiem Rīgā nerūk. jā - neatgriezeniskais urbanizācijas process. cilvēki raujas uz pilsētām, bet lauki izput. raugi, mans <a href="http://klab.lv/users/watt/662057.html">"lielrīgas" (jeb "rīgas aglomerācijas") piedāvājums</a> no 2017. gada. visi cilvēki (nedaudz) ar ko esmu par šo ideju dalījies bija ļoti skeptiski, ja neteikt - baisi satraukti par savām tiesībām dzīvot savā kaktiņā, stūrītī zemes. nesaprata. urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt:721646 2025-01-03T22:17:00 2025-01-03T22:17:00 2025-01-03T22:30:03Z 2025-01-03T22:30:03Z mani ļoti intriģē šī doma <a href="https://www.sciencealert.com/dark-energy-may-not-exist-something-stranger-might-explain-the-universe">par kosmosa reģioniem kur laiks rit citādi</a>: pulkstenis tikšķ ātrāk. Iekš Interstellar tā scēna ar ekspedīciju uz planētu pie melnā cauruma ir vienkārši fiasko - kāda īsti ir dziļā ideja nodibināt civilizāciju uz planētas, kur stundā uz planētas paiet 7 gadi "ārā", jeb kamēr civilizācija domā ka attīstās 100 gadus (tātad 7*24*365*100 = 168 gadi dienā, 61320 gadi vienā Miller's planet "gadā", jeb 6 132 000 gadi) - uz Zemes ir pagājuši seši miljoni gadu, kamēr lēno divplākšņu civilizācijai paiet 100 gadi uz Miller's planet. Tas būtu tā reāli - kolonija uz Miller's planet beidzot ir kaut ko sasniegusi, domā doties uz zvaigznēm, bet tur - hujaks, tur, ārā, kolonijas kas 6 miljonus gadu jau kā kaut ko dara, darbojas. Un skatās uz tupajiem knapi 100 gadus vecajiem kolēģiem kā uz zemes tārpiem. Šāds setting ir Vernor Vinge, tur "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fire_Upon_the_Deep#Setting">zones of thought</a>", kur dažas civilizācijas ir "lēnajā zonā", bet citas savukārt dzīvo daudz ātrākā realitātē. Tur, kad tiec ārā no "lēnās" zonas, datori sāk darboties ātrāk, kļūdas notiek retāk, silīcija-bāzēta dzīvība ir reāla. Šeit gan būtu tādi interesanti blakus efekti - ja komunicē cilvēks uz Zemes ( = pierastais laika ritējums) un cilvēks uz tādas Miller's planet (viena diena viņam ir 168 Zemes gadi), un cilvēks no tāda "Beyond" - joka pēc pieņemsim ka tur arī ir tā ka viena Zemes diena ir 168 gadi iekš Beyond, un 100 Zemes gadi ir 6 miljoni gadu iekš Beyond. Tad tiem cilvēkiem uz Zemes un Miller's planet liksies ka cilvēka dzīves ilgums iekš Beyond ir kaut kādas stundas, sekundes. Bioloģiskās dzīvības formas iekš Beyond sanāk dzimst un mirst kā viendienītes, un vienīgais saprāts kas var kaut kā sekot līdzi tam, kas notiek (nenotiek) uz Zemes un tādā Miller's planet zonā, ir silīcija-bāzēta dzīvība, AI kurš var dzīvot gadu tūkstošus (miljonus un miljardus). (Raksts gan piemin ka pulkstenis iekš "void bubble" varētu tikšķēt 3x ātrāk nekā iekšā galaktikā. Ne tā ka simtiem vai tūkstošiem reižu ātrāk.) urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt:721170 2025-01-01T12:28:00 2025-01-01T12:28:00 2025-01-01T11:30:24Z 2025-01-01T11:30:24Z kaut kā nesagaidu es "jauno" gadu vairs ar prieku. un arī "veco" gadu es nekādi nevērtēju. pēdējo reizi man gadījās pateikt ka gads ir bijis "sūdīgs" par 2019. gadu, un biju ļoti priecīgs ieskandināt 20tos. un tad pēkšņi izrādījās ka 2019 bija brīnišķīgs gads. urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt:720994 2024-12-25T20:08:00 2024-12-25T20:08:00 2024-12-25T19:09:05Z 2024-12-25T19:09:05Z kā pirms četriem gadiem - 2020 gada decembrī - uzspēlēju Cyberpunk. Tad spēle bija tikko iznākusi, zvēriski gļukaina un ar grafiku kas tā brīža kartēm nebija pa zobam. četrus gadus vēlāk, versija 2.2, gļuki izlaboti, man ir grafikas karte kas spēj raytracing, utt utt. dators gan tas pats ko nopirku tieši pandēmijas sākumā (ar 64gb RAM, tā ka nav par ko sūdzēties). bet citādi - nekas daudz nav mainījies. urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt:720681 2024-12-08T20:33:00 2024-12-08T20:33:00 2024-12-08T19:35:14Z 2024-12-08T19:35:14Z spēlējot Factorio es šad un tad sajūtos kā Barons Harkonens, dzīvespriecīgi aizdiršot planētas ekoloģiju un jautri demokratizējot aborigēnus. Nauvis? Ha! Giedi Prime urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt:720425 2024-12-02T15:02:00 2024-12-02T15:02:00 2024-12-02T14:07:45Z 2024-12-02T14:07:45Z padevos mānijai, tagad uz galda stāv LG 40WP95X monitors (curved, 40 collas, jeb 100.9cm - 999€). Pēc tam vēlreiz padevos un iegādājos 4070 OC Super RTX video karti (Asus, 655€). Un nu var rambāt Cyberpunk iekš 5k izšķirtspējas, ar Raytracing, apmēram 40 FPS. (Gan ar frame generation tehnoloģijām, jo parasts Raytracing apmēram 6 kadri sekundē spēj izdot). Bilde tā pa visu field of view, tiešām iespaidīgi. Jāatzīst arī ka Raytracing piedod to īpašo garšu, tā ka spēlēt ir vērts. Bez RT Cyberpunk īsti neelpo. Claude 3.5 Sonnet urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt:720306 2024-10-30T10:39:00 2024-10-30T10:39:00 2024-10-30T09:59:26Z 2024-10-30T09:59:26Z Nolēmu <a href="https://claude.ai">pamēģināt Claude</a> - visi slavē, un apgalvo ka OpenAI stagnē. Nē, nemaz tik ģeniāls Claude nav. Domā, ka ja cilvēks saka "es pārtraucu dzert", cilvēks tiešām pārtrauks dzert. (Hmm, piemirsu izdarīt šo pašu ar GPT 4o - kautkad, kautkad.) w: I'll try that "explain a joke" experiment now. Is it ok? c: Yes, I'm happy to help you analyze and explain jokes. What joke would you like to examine? <a name="cutid1"></a> w: A man walks into a pub and says, "Give me three pints of Guinness, please." So the bartender brings him three pints and the man proceeds to alternately sip one, then the other, then the third until they're gone. He then orders three more and the bartender says, "Sir, I know you like them cold, so you can start with one and I'll bring you a fresh one as soon as you're low." The man says, "You don't understand. I have two brothers, one in Australia and one in the States. We made a vow to each other that every Saturday night we'd still drink together. So right now, my brothers have three Guinness Stouts too and we're drinking together." The bartender thinks it's a wonderful tradition and every week he sets up the guy's three beers as soon as he enters in the bar. Then one week, the man comes in and orders only two. He drinks them, then orders two more. The bartender sadly says, "Knowing your tradition, I'd just like to just say that I'm sorry that one of your brothers died." The man replies, "Oh, my brothers are fine – I just quit drinking." c: Let me analyze why this joke is humorous: 1. Setup and Expectations: - The joke establishes a heartwarming tradition of three brothers maintaining their bond across vast distances by drinking together - The bartender (and audience) becomes invested in this touching ritual - When the man orders only two beers instead of three, both the bartender and audience naturally assume the worst - that one brother has died 2. The Punchline's Subversion: - The obvious conclusion (death of a brother) is completely wrong - Instead, it's revealed that the man himself quit drinking but is still ordering "his brothers'" beers - This creates humor through: - Unexpected misdirection - The absurd logic of ordering two beers while abstaining from alcohol himself - The dedication to maintaining the tradition, even when it makes no practical sense 3. Additional Humor Layers: - The man's matter-of-fact delivery of the explanation - The implied wastefulness of ordering beers he won't drink - The contrast between the bartender's emotional sympathy and the mundane reality The joke works because it builds up an emotional investment in the brotherly tradition, leads us toward a sad conclusion, then surprises us with an illogical but technically consistent resolution that makes us rethink our assumptions. w: There is one more nuance. You missed it. The punchline is actually that man says he has given up drinking, but he still is drinking, just one beer less. He is still an alcoholic, but is in denial about it. People will laugh because people will think the man is stupid, he does not realize his self-deception. The darker explanation is that man is in denial, the lighter one is that he is simply too stupid, to not realize the dissonance between what he really is saying versus what he is doing. He is still drinking those beers. c: Ah, you're absolutely right - I completely missed this crucial layer of irony that actually makes the joke much richer! Let me analyze this better: The real genius of the joke lies in the man's complete cognitive dissonance: - He proudly announces "I quit drinking" while literally in the act of drinking - He doesn't see any contradiction between his statement and his actions - He's reduced his consumption by exactly one beer and considers this "quitting" This works on two levels, as you explained: 1. The darker interpretation: - It's a portrait of alcoholic denial - The man genuinely believes he's quit despite continuing to drink - It's funny but also tragic - a reflection of how addiction warps rational thinking 2. The lighter interpretation: - Simple comedic stupidity - he's too dense to realize the obvious contradiction - Like saying "I'm a vegetarian" while eating a steak The joke becomes much more sophisticated with this understanding - it's not just about subverting expectations regarding the brothers, but rather a commentary on human self-deception and rationalization. The audience laughs both at the absurdity and in recognition of how people can maintain completely contradictory beliefs about themselves. Thank you for helping me see this deeper dimension. It transforms it from a simple misdirection joke into something much more psychologically insightful. Rīga - Berlīne as Tesla M3, kārtējā atskaite urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt:720023 2024-09-03T08:48:00 2024-09-03T08:48:00 2024-09-04T09:58:36Z 2024-09-04T09:58:36Z Šoreiz braucu ar atstrādātu shēmu: lādēties Ionity pēc maksimuma. Nopirku to "Passport" tarifu iekš app (un uzreiz cancel, lai nekāš naudu) un tad uzlāde Panevežā, tad Kaunas, tad tukšums - uz Greenway iekš Suwalki un Nagoszewka (aiz Ostrow Mazowiecka), tad Warsaw Supercharger (kā nu bez tā) - tur var ieiet iekšā Tesla veikalā (un pačurāt kulturāli). Daži saka ka arī bez maksas kafiju varot padzert. Tad Ionity pie Strykow, kur ļoti ērti ir abās ceļa pusēs lādētājs, un tā patiešām tikai savus simts metrus nobraucot no lielceļa. Tā, kā vajadzētu būtu visiem un visur. Šeit gan bija diezgan aizņemts, no 4 lādētājiem viens offline, priekšā jau divi auto lādē, un es tad trešais. Kamēr lādējos es, kādas 3 vai 4 auto bija piebraukuši, ar lielām cerībām mēģina pie tā bojātā lādētāja stāties, un aplaužas. Neviens uz support nezvanīja, cik manīju. Vienkārši devās tālāk. Iespējams tuvumā ir kādas alternatīvas. Varbūt tas pats Ionity pāri ceļam. Braucot cauri Varšavai redzēju drausmīgu sastrēgumu uz ceļa pretējā virzienā. Viens no stratēģiskiem brauciena punktiem būtu izdomāt kā izbraukt Varšavai cauri stundā kad ir mazāk auto. Un Varšava ar to lielceļu cauri pilsētai ir konkrēti nolažojusi. Ap-ved-ce-ļu!!! Tad nakšņojām viesnīcā netālu no Strykow. Agri no rīta tad: 2 stundas līdz Poznaņas Ionity, tad vēl 2.5 stundas līdz Swiecko Ionity, paskatamies vai ir mega sastrēgums uz robežas: sastrēguma nav, un esam bez aiztures Vācijā iekšā, kas principā ir gandrīz vai mērkaķa ātrumā. Kopumā ceļš bija viegls, abas dienas spīdēja saule, nekādi ekscesi negadījās. Pa ceļam satikās apmēram 2-3 dīvainīši (kas apdzen jocīgā manierē). Jocīgs moments: uzlādējos Suwalkos tā lai līdz Warsaw Supercharger tiek ar apmēram 30% atlikumu. Bet tad kad sāk pa to lielceļu dudināt tā ap 130-140 km/h, tad Tesla atlikumu sāk birdināt zemāk un zemāk, līdz ap Ostrow Mazowiecki tuvojoties prognozē atlikumu 0% un sāk brīdināt. Tad nācās iegriezties daudz pārbaudītajā Nagoszewka Zajazd punktā palādēt biški. Īstenībā atlikuma biršanas fenomens turpinājās arī aiz Varšavas: tur ātrumi atkal pieaug, un uz ceļa dudina tā ap 150-160 km/h, un prognozētais atlikums rūk. Kas interesanti, aiz Pozaņas (otrā rītā) jau sanāk satikt auto braucējus kas tā ap 180-190 km/h velk (laikam ietekmējušies ar bez-ierobežojumu Vācijas autobāņa tuvumu) un patēriņš jau atkal uzaug. Ir tā, ka no Rīgas līdz Kauņai sanāk braukt samērā pieticīgā ātrumā, un auto pierod pie ļoti neliela patēriņa. Tikko esi Polijā, patēriņš ievērojami pieaug. Un jo tuvāk Vācija, jo lielāks ātrums skrējējiem uz lielceļa. Ar Greenway man lādēties ir neizdevīgi - cena pavisam nedraudzīga palikusi. Ionity ir samērā nejēdzīgs billing: katru reizi rezervē 40 eiro un tad atskaita atpakaļ savu "refund", bet ne pārāk naski. Sanāk tālbraucienā lādējoties tāds diezgan nopietns apgrozījums uz kartes. Greenway savukārt naudu paņem dienas beigās (agrāk bija tikai mēneša beigās, bet nu menedžē risku). Bet sarēķināt dienas beigās, bez priekšapmaksas, ir ļoti laba stratēģija, ērti visiem. P.S. Ionity/Shell pie Poznaņas kakao bija garšīgs: bet Swiecko Shellā kakao draņķīgs. Un sieviešu tualete slēgta ar atslēgu. Bet es noprotu kāpēc: tur maukas ceļa malā spieto un gan jau ka ateju aizdirš. urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt:719625 2024-08-22T10:49:00 2024-08-22T10:49:00 2024-08-22T07:57:14Z 2024-08-22T07:57:14Z Kapitālismā ir divi drausmīgi postulāti, no kuriem ļoti daudzas mūsdienu bēdas aug. 1) Uzņēmumam ir nepārtraukti jāaug. Ja tu neaudz, tu mirsti. Sekojoši, uzņēmumu vadība lien no ādas ārā lai izdomātu visādus dīvainus gājienus lai tikai palielinātu savu tirgus daļu, bieži vien sadiršot savu pamatkompetenci, un padarot pircējus nelaimīgus. 2) Uzņēmuma peļņas procentam ir nepārtraukti jāaug. Uzņēmumi meklē visus veidus kā izmantot lētākas izejvielas, ieviest lētākus (un mazāk kvalitatīvus) ražošanas procesus, veidus kā pārdot mazkvalitatīvu produktu par lielāku naudu. Tā vietā lai mierīgi tirgotu labu produktu, savā tirgus nišā, bez stresa un ar apmierinātiem pircējiem, uzņēmumi plēšas vai pušu lai iesmērētu tev nekvalitatīvu sūdu. Tas ir kapitālisms. Kopā to sauc par <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification">enshittification</a>. urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt:719488 2024-08-21T09:35:00 2024-08-21T09:35:00 2024-08-21T06:37:18Z 2024-08-21T06:37:18Z (muguras, kakla) masāža ir liels spēks. pēc tam arī miegs dziļāks, var labāk izgulēties. ja (kad) es atkal iešu terapiju, noteikti gribētu darīt tā: vispirms masāžas sesija, un tad terapijas stundiņa. pēc (kakla) masāžas ir vieglāk runāt. vieglāk kaut ko pateikt. urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt:719123 2024-07-08T11:53:00 2024-07-08T11:53:00 2024-07-08T09:17:09Z 2024-07-08T09:17:09Z Biju apmeklēt Lampu. Nepaliku apmierināts: sajutos svešs [šajos dzīves svētkos]. Staigā skaties, viss lieliskā līmenī, tehniski brīnišķīgi, lieliski saorganizēts, tēmas arī it kā interesantas: bet karalis ir kails. Pārāk skaidra plaisa starp runāšanu un darīšanu. Festivāls: viss notiek. Cēsu pilsēta: kas? ko? kur? stāvlaukums festivāla viesiem? pirmā dzirdēšana. (visas stāvvietas aizsistas, pašvaldības policijai riktīga algas diena) Kā Latvijas valsts pārvaldes modus operandus: milzīga vēlme smērēt papīrus, gudri izrunāties, bet nevēlas kaut ko darīt reālu. Visa festivāla zemstraume, kā rīkoties pret valsts pārvaldes nevēlēšanos kaut ko darīt. Un sarunās es nedzirdēju risinājumu. *** Sašķeltība sabiedrībā. Plaisas starp paaudzēm. ASV piemērs: prezidenta kandidāti vecūkšņi tipa Tramps (78), Baidens (81) atsakās pakāpties malā, turas pie varas, plēšas pie varas. Tie kam vara, no tās ar labu neatkāpsies. Varu būtu jāatņem: tikai vardarbīgā veidā viņus varētu nogrūst no siles. Bet kaut kā mēs (mana paaudze) neesam spējīgi šo protestu veikt. Vai trūkst vēlēšanās? Vai trūkst varēšanas? Nesaprotu. urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt:718976 2024-07-02T16:57:00 2024-07-02T16:57:00 2024-07-02T14:00:00Z 2024-07-02T14:00:00Z Starp citu, Tesla tā vietā lai kičītos un mēģināt lekt augstāk par dirsu ar Full Self Driving (FSD) varēja iesākt ar ceļa zīmju un atļautā braukšanas ātruma atpazīšanu. Vislabākais FSD būs atsēdies sūdos, ja vilksies uz 50 tur kur atļauts 90, un otrādi, mauks uz 90 tur kur ir zīme 70. (Parasti gan viņš vairāk spiež uz to lēnāko - neatpazīst laika ierobežojumus ātruma zīmēm, neatpazīst krustojumus, aiz kura ierobežojums beidzas, utt utjp.) urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt:718821 2024-06-29T12:42:00 2024-06-29T12:42:00 2024-08-11T08:19:58Z 2024-08-11T08:19:58Z Neliela atskaite par braucienu no Berīnes uz Rīgu, 19.07-20.07. Šoreiz stratēģija bija tāda: izmantot daudz Ionity lādētājus. Nopirku viņu "passport" tarifu, un uzreiz cancel, tb tāds viena mēneša maksājums. Braucu caur Lomžu, nakšņoju Suwalkos. Izbraucu no Berlīnes ap 6:00, ierados Suwalkos ap 16:00. Lomžas apbraukšana joprojām kauna traips, un ceļi tur vienām ir baisi, šoreiz netriecos cauri pilsētai bet gan apmetu loku. (Tas, ka līdzekļus lielceļa būvēšanai nozaga bebri no tuvējā "Biebrzański Park Narodowy" ir vairāk nekā skaidrs.) Lādēšanās vietas: simboliska lādēšanās Swiecko Ionity. Tad, Poznaņas Ionity. Piebraukšana tur ir OK, bet lai tiktu atpakaļ uz lielceļa, tāda cilpa uz 10 minūtēm, diemžēl. Ja nebūtu Ionity tarifs, labāk izvēlētos apstāties BP Niepruszewo ar Greenway. Dodoes tālāk, tad nedaudz aiz Strykow, tur divi Ionity, viens Varšavas lielceļa pusē, otrs Poznaņas virzienā. Šis gan ir perfekts apstāšanās punkts. Perfekts. (Bet, mistiski kā uz austrumiem no Lodž/Strykow ir pilnīgs un absolūts Ionity tuksnesis: līdz pat Kauņai vienkārši nulle.) OK. Braucot atzīmēju kā Tesla prognozētais range un reālais atlikums par 10% atšķiras - ja auto sola ka iebraukšu lādēt ar 25% atlikumu, ierodos ar 15%. Ja sola 30% atlikums, ierodos ar 20%. Tas nedaudz krīt uz nerva un mērķēt ierasties tā ap 10% atlikumu pavisam nesaista. Nākamā uzlāde: Varšavas Tesla Supercharger North ar saviem 14 staļļiem. Iebraucot gandrīz visi aizņemti, reāli, tikai 3-4 brīvi, cilvēki tik brauc un vienojas klāt un nost. Mašīnas tā ka ņudz. Nopērku vietējā veikalā Biedronka (bizbizmārīte) šo to apēst. Interesanti, Polijā ir divas konkurējošas veikalu ķēdes, Biedronka, un Žabka (vardīte). Par Biedronka es vēlos piebilst, ja to "d" apmet otrādi, var izlasīt "Biebronka": t.i., bebri maskējas. Brauciens cauri Varšavai nebija tik traks kā citu reizi, bet strēga riktīgi vietās pirms ceļš sadalās uz Bialistok virzienu un to otru virzienu. Un pēc tam salīdzinoši brīvs ceļš. Secinu, ka tā vieta kur auto ir jāpārkārtojas un jāizlemj, vai šoreiz pa ziemeļu virzienu, vai pa dienvidu apvedceļu braukt, cilvēkiem jauc galvu. Uzlādēju pietiekami lai tiktu līdz Suwalkiem (uz to Greenway lādētāju pie Suwalku Kaufland), dudinu, bet tad izlemju piestāt pie Ostrow Mazowiecka (Nagoszewka Greenway) lādētāja, kafija, tualete, ziņa naktsmāju saimniekiem precizējot ierašanās laiku. Un tad dudinam, apbraucam Lomžu nolādot bebrus, dudinam atkal. Ja Varšavā bija +33 °C, tad Suwalkos staigā tumši mākoņi, ir vējains un pavēss. Ja gribētu maksimizēt dienā nobraukto stundu skaitu, varētu naktsmājas meklēt Kauņā vai Panevežā. Bet Suwalkos naktsmājām ir ļoti labs cenas/kvalitāte rādītājs. Izguļos, no rīta nesteidzīgi savācos, dodos tālāk. Lietuvas robeža pienāk negaidīti ātri: bet tur milzīga rinda ar smagajiem, saiet divas joslas kopā, robežsargi (vai muitnieki?) vērīgi lūr un dažiem smago šoferiem arī apskata dokumentus. Vieglie gan fiksi ielien priekšā, un minūtes laikā esmu jau Lietuvas pusē. Atkāpe par robežu: tas kas darās Vācijā no Polijas iebraucot ir vispār drausmas, kā tie sušķa friči nobloķējuši lielceļu un tad desmit kilometrus lielceļš velkas ar 10km/h ātrumu, saiet divas joslas vienā, un jābrauc garām smirdīgam mobilajam kontroles punktam, tas ir nožēlojami. Vācieši, protams, meklē visādus imigrantus un bēgļus un spiegus, nu lai jau. Esmu priecīgs, ka izpalika mokošais ceļš no Bialistokas līdz Lietuvas robežai ar tām draņķa mazajām pilsētiņam un radariem pie katra krūma. Un, tad noslēdzošais posms, klusām dudinam cauri Lietuvai. Pilns ar radariem, gan foto, gan vidējā ātruma. Apstājos Kauņas/Garliawa Ionity, bet varēju arī nestāties: uzlādes pietiek līdz Panevežas Ionity. Panevežas Ionity ļoti jauks, tieši lielceļa apļa malā, šeit lādējo tā lai pietiek līdz Rīgai un arī tā ar rezervīti, lai nav uzreiz jālādē ierodoties. (Bet Rīgā tagad ir lieliskas uzlādes iespējas, Elektrum, e-mobi/Mobilly, Eleport un Virši, nav vairs pavisam ne tā kā pirms 3 gadiem, kad centrā bija tikai daži e-mobi lādētāji un vēl viens Elektrum netālu no Nacionālās bibliotēkas. Ļoti žēl ka Satekles ielas stacijā Viršiem saskādēja to jauno lādētāju.) P.S. Poļi gan vienu lietu varētu izdarīt: aizliegt smagajiem apdzīt vienam otru. Viens velkas ar 80 km/h, otrs ar 85 km/h apdzen, un aiz šiem viss ceļš, kas varētu ar 140 braukt, bloķēts. urn:lj:klab.lv:atom1:watt:718494 2024-06-08T10:24:00 2024-06-08T10:24:00 2024-06-08T08:29:32Z 2024-06-08T08:29:32Z Vācijā tādas ziņas, ka pieprasījums pēc e-auto ir spēcīgi nokrities. (Pārējās Eiropas valstīs gan vēl ne.) Interesanti par benzīna cenām, pirms gada (pusotra) benzīns bija ap 2 eiro litrā. Tagad kādi 1.70 €/l. Benzīnniekiem (ICE) business as usual. Bet ja gribētu tā kārtīgi e-auto kustībai dot ceļu, benzīnam cenu varētu pacelt uz 3 €/l, bet elektrībai cenu kaut kā turēt ap 20 centi/kWh.