florkbork

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50237485#50238062 - was already lambasted, didn't seem to be appealing.

You are going out on a limb there to pretend the justice system cannot prosecute, jail people engaged in criminal activity.

Or a trail of documentation can add to a future criminal prosecution.

Hypothetically if you were running an organisation that was corrupt and the political winds turned against you, would you carefully preserve accurate records that documented crimes you or your underlings performed and provide an accurate handover? Or would you shred, obfuscate and destroy as much information as possible on the way out?

If the latter, would detailed map of your command and control structure as understood by your IT department / HR be a risk to you?

And why are you asking?

You can reasonably assume it will be demoralising to do so. Will the answer change anything material in the world aside from that?

https://ddosecrets.org/article/icepick upstream coverage

It's not a terrible take.

What do you call an expert knowledge worker system with access to vast troves of knowledge, a sophisticated text to speech loop and empathy, that empowers others? That could reshape your knowledge infrastructure to a usable system?

A librarian.

If there were a huge number of jobs that were able to be automated/these skills solved them, why hasn't society paid librarians LOTS and hired one at every company?

The answers are probably it costs too much, the work is too niche

"We're designing/running the lottery. You get to pick the winning numbers, in secret, obviously so no one will know. There are millions of numbers you can pick from, using a random system so it's all trustworthy. Instead of drawing a random ball out, and another and another, you write down the number 4 on a bit of paper and go home for the day thinking it's a job well done. No one noticed because they all expected it to take up to a million guesses, until someone just asked if it was 4"

This is basically https://www.christopherroosen.com/blog/2020/4/20/how-the-rit...

Oh good lord do I hate this "your carbon footprint" rhetoric.

Eating a hamburger or driving a car is not the problem at an individual level.

These companies are: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/revealed... Going to bet not much has changed since 2019.

You can't vegan hamburger your way to terminating those enterprises. You can tax, regulate and ban them though; and use the revenue to help society adjust.

Refute it then with something other than name calling and hurt feelings.

'cause these folks did the math: https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(25)01186-9/full...

Is this a paid blog post?

I have been inundated with grok AI spam, as have others - https://www.reddit.com/r/DigitalMarketing/comments/1wi3z7q/i...

Mealie supports this with some rules, and you can set up a crontab to randomly plan your week and tweak.

Shows up a lot of limitations about data captured, but as a starter for humans to tweak it's not bad.

Its telling you your mmWave radar isn't speaking over serial communication well.

https://www.analog.com/en/resources/analog-dialogue/articles...

(Its negging your soldering)

https://alltheplaces.xyz/ is a better version of this idea - grabs snapshots of structured data where the business has made an effort to publish it.

Street view imagery is better for attributes on the actual street - mapillary did it first, with automated feature extraction for street signs etc, others have followed.

No, it's your source; you prove your claims.

I'll give you a hint though - the article doesn't even quote him, it just puts out a spicy headline.

What he actually said and the context:

"Ban social media. Keyboard warriors can anonymously say anything at all. Without any fear.", with regard to a misinformation bill.

Considering the sources deliberately stripped everything of context and you've repeated it without checking, would you say we have a misinformation problem with media in general, or social media?

Red herring, you've linked to a conservative leaning sub community posting a source that is known to be generally inaccurate.

This is about legislation penalizing social media companies for shoving algorithmic slop down the throats of consumers.

But if we want to introduce political figures and their thoughts on social media; the traditional opposition party is lead by this man - someone willing to manipulate the public with social media.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2026/feb/12/fantastic-gr...

And the newer wonderkid of the media is engaged in widespread slopaganda: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-11/foreign-fake-news-pau...

This is an absolute failure on the part of medical science. SSRIs went mainstream in 1988.

By 1992! We knew about withdrawal issues: https://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/SSRI_discontinuation_syndr...

Let's be generous and give it until the 2000s for the knowledge to spread and science to validate; and we're still left with 26 years of blundering around without IMO sufficient warning to patients about withdrawal risks.

I would wager some of the doctors who prescribe today were well past a glint in their father's eye when we started to know about this.

They will be, if they can't find accountability sinks.

https://www.commonplace.org/p/reining-in-the-unaccountabilit...

In this case this person was "responsible for getting five- to 12-year-olds to play football in the Hunter region".

She would have the occasional exposure to children, market to them, gather statistics and survey them. She asked if she could not expose this group to AI and the answer was "no".

Who knows. Could just burn down the ballroom this time and would anyone be too mad?

Arguably, the individuals of the world did - US international tourism is down by as much as 7% according to some sources.

They could be independent. But not acknowledging the source or inspiration? Or somehow being completely unaware of it?

These mainstream journos would have to exist in a clean room environs.

There is no way (except for the way I just articulated)...

I will call out the ABC here for taking a lot of the boots on the ground work that Tom Tanuki - independent journo (https://youtube.com/@tomtanuki) has done with these far right slopaganda mills, slicing off the prior recognition and pretending it's a big new problem they just found. While a bit of this is new... Is it that new? Is this report that detailed? Hmmmmm

This is trivial to navigate. Use the notes API to post the likely presence of a public bookcase with details (link to image, description, etc); and the community will slowly ingest the contributions.

Or set up a maproulette challenge with much the same detail.

Or just a geojson dump under an ODBL licence and share with with relevant communities. The third one or something very like it is required if you have mixed ODBL with non ODBL content.

It also forces a spot to be freed, so that people with enough $ don't simply rent the most desirable cark parks forever.

This feels like an AI narrative, transcribed by a human.

1) Impromptu yoga class brunch. No one says "oh, who needs to top up their parking since we'll be an extra hour"; so it's technology at fault that they got a notification half way through, not the people involved? The consequence was no one got ticketed?

2) 6 people with 6 phones, some of them the "latest iPhones" scanned a QR code once each, after struggling; chose their meals, didn't pay via the app, and it created a shared bill with complete loss of who ordered what.

I have never used a QR code ordering system this bad. The only way this makes sense is if they all told a staff member what they were having from reading an online menu. Paper menus would not have changed this. A restaurant wouldn't typically use a solution so bad, it'd be gone in a few weeks if they have any kind of autonomy.

How did these people live through COVID and never encounter a QR code they had to scan with a phone? Is this elderly yoga? Or ultra rich kids with butlers their entire lives? It doesn't make sense that they are so technologically illiterate any other way.

3) They all paid, but the only information they could see was the remaining amount unpaid. At the end, the last person paid; and the staff told them there was 24Dh outstanding - and this was a surprise. The last person just left without mentioning this, or their eyes don't work? How is having the only piece of information visible to you the bit that causes the surprise?

None of this makes sense to me as internally consistent. Yes, the writing style doesn't look ChatGPT flavoured, there are mistakes in it to appear more human; but the cognitive model of how things work seems to be utterly inhuman.

Re Australia vs China

https://youtu.be/sgspkxfkS4k?si=JgnhenF0qeTZXeGS basically explains the situation.

While having data/code stolen isn't ideal, there is a certain point where you need to assume it's already out there. There's actually more probability of harm from shady US companies imo, because people are less suspicious about data sovereignty

Yeah, nah.

Simple example: Who will renew the SSL cert? Day 1: meh, no impact. Day 2: meh, no impact. Day 700: who the hell manages this and why are we making no revenue?

You might think that is laughable; what a pack of newbs!

But this stuff has already happened without even LLMs in the mix.

https://www.digicert.com/blog/lessons-from-the-equifax-data-... comes to mind.

The number of flea circus level orgs where someone has flubbed it and been on leave, causing a few hours outage? More than one in my experience.

Where it's more hostile? https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/1itiu8n/it_team_f... is a common narrative.

The lag time between firing your core team and finding out that was a bad idea can be measured in years of slow attrition.

Pfft.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2799035/

Smart people drink and smoke more; not less, potentially to self sooth/deal with the oppressive reality they find themselves in.