lanternfish

10 Axios's within 5 days.

Why not?

Engineering is done in the context of constraints, cost is one constraint - and its a relatively conserved constraint. Saving labor in one area allows for more care in other areas. Especially given that labor is often not cost constrained, but skill constrained, which is less elastic.

Mobile app compatibility is presumably the biggest seller.

In Iraq, JSOC operational doctrine was literally to target assassination campaigns based on 'nodal analysis' from contacts lifted from cellphones; if telegram had existed, they certainly would have used it too.

Famously, they didn't have enough Arabic translators, so Delta Force was often taking targets entirely based on reported association. They couldn't target based on language because they couldn't even tell what language locals were speaking most of the time.

That wasn't my point. My specific argument is about US operational policy on the ground in similar engagements. Based on precident, we would expect them to engage in the behavior the commentor indicts.

I dream that neither of these imperial powers - Russia or the US - will be allowed to inflict imperial violence, but I wouldn't be mistaken and assume that this military action will be any different than, say, JSOC in Iraq.

See: Panama, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

The problem is the same problem with crypto dao projects - cryptographic certainties only apply to mathematical structures; you can't validate that someone actually holds a quality until you can embed that digitally. That turns out to be very hard to do for most things.

In a mathematical sense - absolutely. You can dual halting problem against many very tangible qualities - like whether a (proved) statement is true or false. A (large-n) halting program is closer to an instantly halting program not just because n is always closer to 0 than inf, but because 'large n halting' and 'instantly halting' are ontologically similar in a way they just aren't with unhalting programs.

An LLM - which has functionally infinite unverifiable attack surface - directly wired into a payment system with high authentication. How could anyone anticipate this going wrong?

I feel like everyone is saying 'we're still discovering what LLMs are good at' but it also feels like we really need to get in our collective conscious what they're really, really, bad at.

I think that's called Myst (1993)

`M(ultimodal) Ag(ent) [ma]` maybe

I'm honestly not sure that their analysis passes muster. It seems that the main consideration is that Harris underperformed compared to down-ballot races and that the underperformance was ahistoric. However, the campaign was also ahistoric: she ran as a pseudo-incumbent under an unpopular presidency without as much of the name recognition incumbency usually offers. It seems extremely likely to me that this drop off in early voting numbers is indicative of an exceptionally weak campaign as opposed to widespread (consistent across all swing states) manipulation.

I agree that it's not the best term, but I don't think its so disqualifying that it makes the claim untrue: it's misleading at worst, and that imprecision only kinda interacts with the underlying claim.

I guess the better phrasing would be "Kansas tuberculosis outbreak is largest since (org) has been collecting data", which honestly doesn't change the implications for me.

"Recorded history" in the title refers to the period of history where the agency has been recording the numbers. It might not be the best phrasing, but it's not strictly untrue; the underwritten thesis (TB is on the rise) is still supported by the evidence.

The actual work underlying the essay - the one published in Cambridge Core - is pretty strong and has a lot of pretty compelling analysis. It's just long.

This seems an insufficient analysis. The meaning expressed by contemporary music, film media, or streaming television isn't very profound, but they at least still make a passing effort to "signify" something. The highest grossing movie of 2024 - Inside Out 2 - is not a deep text, but it does have a thesis.

The "Pixar apparatus" is definitely increasingly consumed by audience demand, but they're at a minimum in a transitional phase: something like Seeing Red would never get workshopped out of committees.

Youtube and other social media (emphasis on media) is ground zero for the decay of meaning into intensity; the ultimate incestuous product of auto-simulacra.

Your conclusion is the exact same one the above essay comes to in the next paragraphs. It concludes that the "alignment" between MrBeast and his work is a result of the larger thesis: creators are ultimately created by the audience conditions of the platform. Or, authenticity doesn't mean much when the root of the creator isn't a ground truth, but a synthesis of demand.

Contact Mike is one of the most important encyclopedia checks in the game, honestly.

Its one of the few direct hints you get to HDB's backstory before the literal last scene, which can actually give you actionable insight in a couple scenes IIRC.

Oh shit I totally misread the policy - I interpreted "payments to such accounts" to mean donations etc. made through channels that the host supported. As written, it's not really an offset, and really just a way to wash hands, which honestly I probably support more.

They hope to offset some sort of imperative burden (presumably moral) of hosting onerous content by countermanding the effect of hosting that content with paired monetary support of its adversary. My consideration is that pairing effect there is extremely weak - maybe so weak that the policy is on net dubios.

Maybe its unfair pessimism, but I definitely believe that Kiwifarms (ex) is way more efficient at turning money into targeted hate than - say - the Trevor Project is at countering it.

I guess my sense is that if you actually want to counter this kind of harm, you have to do so on a fundamentally structural level, and the host in question is the structural enabler.

This relies on an EA adjacent market fallacy where we can resolve all moral action down to funding actors of various moral alignments - there's no reason to believe that the end utility (or whatever metric) of the action is linear w.r.t amount of cash moved.

Garage band EvilWebsite.com is going to appreciate that 5$ way more than the SPLC or whatever.

This isn't to say that the policy is strictly bad, I just worry that it reinforces pretty negative patterns. Carbon offsets barely work, and that's an actual market - bigotry offsets are a dark line to walk.

(edit - misread the policy; it's not about matching cash flows through the service to offending websites, it's donating profits from offending costumers. That seems more consistent to me.)

you pay them in the only resource known to humanity to be worth more than money - petty forum power predicated on exclusivity.

For anything weight bearing, I really wouldn't trust it for translation. More than once I've gotten an output that had subtly different meanings or implications than the input. A human translator is going to be significantly more interrogatable here - just as a logical reasoner.

I'd differentiate here between deductive and inductive reasoning. While english and history - through argumentation - expose some deductive reasoning, the vast majority of it is inductive.

The problem is that mathematics education isn't just about learning times tables.

It's also the primary medium schools use to communicate analytical reasoning and deductive analysis. If you cut math as a target without fundamentally reworking curricular elements, you'll have a ton of graduates who are much worse at negotiating the validity of competing logical arguments.

In short, no.

It's a distillation of the top level comment done in a sarcastic manner meant to indicate the dubious natute of the original claim.

No, but you have to consider that the voted-for-jill-stein signal is considerably dampened from the didn't-vote-for-harris-because-of-Palestine signal; most of those people just wouldn't vote at all