blast

This position is so extreme, you'd have to have called Reader Rabbit "electroshocking kids" as well.

Prior art: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boaty_McBoatface

Is "residential proxy" a euphemism for botnets or is there a difference? Genuinely curious.

The Possessed (2010), The Idiot (2017), and Either/Or (2022)

That's like publishing Hamlet (2010), King Lear (2017), and Thus Spake Zarathustra (2022). I wonder what her thought process is in choosing these titles? And what will her next work be?

What's inaccurate in how he quoted her? The context seems fully consistent with the quote.

exams are designed so that cheating is not a viable strategy to obtain high grades

That's interesting. How do they do that?

mlinsey wasn't anthropomorphizing technology, and your GP comment seems extreme to me.

Whatever its other merits or demerits, reinstating the draft would cut back on needless wars. Abandoning the draft is what ended the anti-war movement, and to reinstate it would be to revive those protests. For this reason, if nothing else, it probably won't be reinstated.

What this has to do with the argument Palantir is apparently making, I have no idea. I can't make any sense of it.

That leaves no solution when the quantity becomes more than any human can review.

A 'psyop' psyop!

He also went to OpenAI's office and threatened to burn it down.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/10/tech/suspect-arrest-openai-ce...

"Violence like this is not the answer. However,"

Humans are social animals, so any mystery about another person is interesting, and wealth and fame multiply this.

friday news dump tho

Fuck boosting engagement.

"The lesson is not just to resist. It is to grow up."

Barf.

Well said and I agree completely...but did Robert Plant play guitar?

Gptzero and Pangram both say this article was AI-generated. Seems we've forgotten how to do other things as well.

the cheapest bridge that just barely won't fail

That can't be right? What about safety factors

The joke has been old for a while already.

This trend predates LLMs though.

That's a great point which never occurred to me about Dijkstra, even though I knew where he came from. My father in law used to like this joke: "He was Dutch and behaved as such."

When did Woz post here? I'd love to see that.

This doggerel is every bit as propagandistic as what it opposes, and has nothing in common with Owen's poem of unbearably real experience.

The gas victim scene is harrowing. But what haunts me even more is the men without boots, marching with bloody feet.

Sorry for replying so late, I only just checked the thread.

"I was mislabeled but not locked up" is misleading because hospitalization was phased out decades ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalisation). The reason she didn't get "locked up" is because treatments changed, not because she was assessed correctly (she was not). Psychotic patients don't get "locked up" by default anymore—they get medicated, which is what happened in her case as well.

It's a red herring to emphasize an obsolete practice that was phased out long ago. "I was mislabeled but not locked up" says no more than "I was mislabeled but not put in an insulin coma". A more accurate statement would be "I was misdiagnosed and treated for mental illness". Written that way, it's clearer that this is not a refutation of Rosenhan at all, and looks more like a replication.

I don't know if the book is actually this misleading because I haven't read it. I'm just making an out-of-context response to the out-of-context bits of information I've gleaned here.

I feel like we might have more to learn from you than the other way round. Where by "we" I mean the traditional programmers who frequent this place.

All three of these (birth, live music, and cooking) involve the body in ways that can't be virtualized.

One long-term effect of AI adoption might be to cheapen and commodify the virtual, and reorient us to embodied experience. I hope so.

She was given some anti-psychotics and sent away

But that confirms the main point of the experiment, which was that people who didn't need psychiatric treatment were given it anyway.

It's only of secondary importance that the prescribed treatment changed from hospitalization in 1973 to drugs by 2004. The primary point is that there was no objective way to determine who genuinely needed treatment. She didn't, but was diagnosed anyway.

This objection is so obvious that she must have addressed it in the book. Do you remember if she did?

Publications could use watermarking to encode the name of the account an article is being served to, but they don't seem to. I wonder why.