jadamson

It reads fine to me. If it is AI, I'd like to know which one so I can use it too.

This article is from the UK, where firearms only account for 2.5% of completed suicides. In both the US and the UK, men are generally more likely to succeed even after accounting for their chosen method, e.g. they take larger overdoses within the same drug class:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01650...

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

That's what he's asking for, but it seems Xitter becoming a walled garden has killed those old "trend" charting sites that used to exist around it.

Do you get angry at all suggestions of nepotism, or just that particular variation?

Your reaction is far more aggressive than the original comment, what's up with that?

> was clearly a sham trial and did not address the legitimacy of the evidence

I'm curious what you mean by this. It was famously the UK trial that relied on copies of photos relayed via The Sun, while the US trial looked at the originals, including the EXIF data:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoQK1iAza9M

> any abuse expert would be able to immediately recognize it.

"Immediately recognize" isn't a phrase I'd associate with examining the legitimacy of evidence.

> I am not personally critical of her using bots to defend herself, if she did

Ah.

The OP says it's using CT logs, not new domain registrations. The approach you have in mind would not include subdomains and would be less likely to coincide with a new server being configured.

Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48444543

Sure you didn't just make a typo and hit a squatted domain?

> I am saying that this one event is being used as ammunition by racist organisations to further their aims.

That much follows as sure as night follows day. I'm reminded of the riots after the police killing of Mark Duggan [1]. Those who understood themselves to be on the receiving end of policed mistreatment latched on to it, using it as an excuse to loot and start fires, regardless of the fact that Duggan was lawfully killed on his way back from purchasing an illegal firearm - a weapon that he, ironically, intended to use to kill another black man.

There's an outside chance you're correct that the police's treatment of Nowak was simply incompetence, but paired with the explicit policy to treat racial groups differently to one another, that is not how it will be perceived. Add to that the fact that his murderer falsely accused him of racism to obscure the fact he'd just fatally stabbed the man, and the racial dynamic is undeniable.

That dynamic concretely exists. It exists on paper, in the mind of Nowak's killer, and in the minds of those protesting. The question then is how to defuse it. If you think immigration/diversity are positives (and I agree that they can be, with some caveats), my suggestion would be that you should be as against the IPCC's notion of "racial equity" as I am, even if only because the current situation was bound to happen regardless of any p=0.01 direct line between the IPCC document and this particular incident.

In other words: even if you were right, it would barely matter. Mark Duggan has rarely been brought up as an example of injustice since the facts of the case were fully elucidated, but that IPCC document, and others like it [2], will be an endless source of grief.

> It's wrong to use this as an example of why immigration is bad for society.

The top comment mentioned "two-tier justice" and we have argued from there. You are the only person to even use the words "immigration" or "diversity" until now.

I would like to think that we can have immigration and diversity without an IPCC that says police shouldn't treat people equally, or a sentencing council that thinks provision of PSRs should be based on ethnicity, or vetting panels that that allow ineligible applicants to join the police force.

Am I wrong? Let me know and I'll update my opinions accordingly.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Mark_Duggan

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2gn9zqkp9o

You said one officer. There were four in attendance. If you want to be snarky, you should at least be able to count to four.

You're saying that allegations of two-tier policing are far-right disinformation. In fact, it is official policy, and the IPCC document leaves no room for interpretation on this.

Another user brought up Jean Charles de Menezes, a man killed in the wake of the 7/7 London bombings after being misidentified as a terror threat that should not be allowed on the tube. Ironically, that operation was overseen by a woman who went on to become the Met Police Commissioner, setting diversity targets that led to [1] (quoting Wikipedia):

> In January 2026, a Met Police review revealed that in an attempt to meet the diversity targets set by Dick, senior figures in the force had allowed recruitment standards to fall. More than 100 applicants who initially failed vetting procedures were later allowed to join after their cases were referred to a special panel set up to scrutinise rejected applications from ethnic minority candidates. Several of these went on to commit criminal offences or misconduct, including violence, sex attacks and drug use.

The rot is very deep at this point, and it's far too late to pretend it isn't happening. Your efforts would be better spent on arguing why the policies you support are a good thing.

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/08/met-hired-child-...

Jean Charles de Menezes was killed because he was misidentified as an active terror threat two weeks after the 7/7 London bombings. The officer who killed him was ordered not to allow him on the tube. Ironically, that order was given by Cressida Dick, who went on to set diversity targets that led to [1]. Quoting the Wikipedia summary:

> In January 2026, a Met Police review revealed that in an attempt to meet the diversity targets set by Dick, senior figures in the force had allowed recruitment standards to fall. More than 100 applicants who initially failed vetting procedures were later allowed to join after their cases were referred to a special panel set up to scrutinise rejected applications from ethnic minority candidates. Several of these went on to commit criminal offences or misconduct, including violence, sex attacks and drug use.

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/08/met-hired-child-...

There were four officers in attendance [1] and race guidance [2] that says, quote:

> Our commitment to racial equity [...] does not mean treating everyone ‘the same’ or being ‘colour blind’ (racial equality).

is currently under review as a result [3].

[1] https://theconversation.com/police-to-review-anti-racism-gui...

[2] https://www.npcc.police.uk/our-work/police-race-action-plan/...

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c392gj41pgpo

> My point is this, none of these people ever make a point of how much freedom they had, because after a couple hundred years they stopped, quite like the the brits like to.

The others he listed didn't stop voluntarily - their empires either collapsed or found themselves at the mercy of another that likely also practiced slavery. As he said, slavery was the default. The UK itself was getting raided by Barbary pirates just 200 years before the Slavery Abolition Act.

Unlike the Romans or the Mongols, the UK made a choice to stop, and they did so, at massive cost, because their values changed. They actual made actual progress, and thus are hated by many calling themselves progressives.

If you go to the homepage (or look at the banner) the project is shut down since 2015.

https://fffff.at/rip/

It's a laggy resource hog. It's slow to open. You can spam the windows key and watch CPU usage increase.

Putting words in someone's mouth to defend that dreck sounds ridiculous, yes.

You may claim not to have the intention, but materially, it's what you're doing.

Everyone doesn't get drafted at once. It stands to reason that drafting women would mean fewer men were needed.

> I wish we'd first fix women's rights and then extend their duties.

"We'll get around to it when some arbitrary measure is met, we promise"

This is the same thing you're criticising - using one injustice to justify another.

Interesting, so they have to see the writing on the wall a couple of months in advance (plus processing time, presumably).

Setting aside arguments over biology, avoiding getting sent to war to be blown to pieces wouldn't be a "light" reason to consider claiming gender diversity.

The latest version with the the pth file doesn't require an import to trigger the exploit (just having the package installed is enough thanks to [1]).

The previous version triggers on `import litellm.proxy`

Again, all according to the issue OP.

[1] https://docs.python.org/3/library/site.html

In case you missed it, according to the OP, the previous point release (1.82.7) is also compromised.

Most his recent commits are small edits claiming responsibility on behalf of "teampcp", which was the group behind the recent Trivy compromise:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47475888

Little St. James

Ah, and the characters are supposed to be an ASCII spinner.

I think if I was new to Linux that would confuse the life out of me :)

I don't understand your suggestion. If you're still showing one character after each character entered, what's changed?

What's the benefit of having a random character from a random set, instead of just a random character?

I like how some of the logos are inexplicably upside down:

https://office.eu/images/social-proof/tu-berlin.svg https://office.eu/images/social-proof/itzbund.svg

Safari is the highest for 10 tabs but second-lowest for 20? This reads like AI slop, but even if it's not, it's definitely blogspam with no methodology.

It signifies that someone notable in the industry has recently died, in this case Tony Hoare [1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47324054

It very much is the same incident.