GPT-5 has been a phantom boogyman for like a year. Any time something better comes up, people claim OpenAI is holding back by not releasing some secret model despite the fact that if they had it, they'd be fully incentived to release it.
Hahaha yes, buckwheat. So many typos in my comment, my bad.
I'm looking now for another sleeve to split my pillow's content in two and have one for my bum, that way I can be comfortable when working from wooden chairs, which are most common.
Like 50 bucks, keeps it's shape, keeps it's chills (regular pillows come stoves to me), keeps my head straight without folding a pillow in 4, keeps some support of my head why I tuck my arm under so I don't put much pressure on my shoulder.
Been travelling for 3 months and carrying it, makes every bed a good bed.
So, you know who I am or how to reach me? Send me an e-mail (or, better yet, dox Satoshi) and I'll take your point. I don't see how pseudonymity can't be a flavor of anonymity, even cyber-criminals who have every reason to remain truly anonymous online - as in hidden from FBI and gang - can pick some form of pseudonym so people can address them, Dread Pirate Roberts would be an obvious example (tho he failed to be anonymous to govs).
Per Wikipedia:
>Anonymity describes situations where the acting person's identity is unknown. [...] The important idea here is that a person be non-identifiable, unreachable, or untrackable.
Is it not, for the non-criminal user? My HN, Reddit and Twitter accounts are "anonymous" (pseudonymous would be more accurate), and it matters to me to the extent I share thoughts I would not on Facebook or if Googling my name lead straight to it - not that I'm ashamed of them, I try to be decent (tho I slip at times and am more brash than I would IRL), it's just that they hold some personal opinions and matters, kind of like that lady in OP's post (except I wouldn't reuse pseudonyms, especially not openly cross-linked to identified accounts). Obviously, a governmental agency that had any reason to look for me would link them in the blink of an eye, but it is "anonymous" enough for my needs: people who matter to me or people like prospective employers do not know of them and hardly could. Even if they leaked to some dark corners of the Internet like my SSN (screw you, Equifax), that hardly doxes me as far as regular humans are concerned. If someone emailed me with my online usernames, it would creep the fuck out of me, but ultimately be inconsequential, at worse it would threaten to shame me for my opinions.
So how's that not on a spectrum of anonymity? OP's post obviously does not say your anonymity when it comes to three letter US agencies is on a spectrum, that is black and white and s-he recognizes it, but rather the link-ability of your online presence(s) to your real life identity. With that Tinder lady at the "IDGAF"-end of it, your paranoid (or criminal) Jane Doe on the other end and me somewhere in between (but much closer to the former).
Twitter is reputation/persona-centric rather than topic/subforum-centric, it is what you make it to be. I don't really venture outside of fin-Twitter, but I'd bet there are fantastic accounts focused on sharing old hidden treasures.
While not quite this sort of old treasure, take for example twitter.com/TechEmails, I've learned of a bunch of 15-25 year old stories and anecdotes through some of his posts that I wouldn't have otherwise heard of.
Perhaps at an expert level, but given theory debt of even normal chess I hardly see how this could be an issue at very expert level but that's not for some years (assuming it gets a community but it clearly has a good start). It actually looks really fun, hopefully there isn't a way to cheese-win as white, but barring that it looks really fun and creative.
Is BeReal not a social media because there's no algorithmic feed?