strictnein

Very interesting, thanks!

lol, true true. Should have used a different example.

Not what is being claimed here and stating that shows a complete lack of understanding of the term Active Measures, the history of it, and what the book of the same name discusses.

Also, it's amusing you think you know my political leanings or that it would somehow affect the accuracy of what is being discussed. It's strange how people think that they can win arguments by casting the person they're debating into some group they've decided is already wrong.

Anyways, go google the term and then pretend like you knew what it was all along and that you're an expert on Russian influence campaigns of the 20th and 21st centuries. That works well on Twitter and Reddit, maybe it'll work here too?

Apple and Samsung are ~40-50% of the global market, depending on the source. Saying that smartphones are mostly from Chinese companies isn't accurate. And Samsung and Apple are gaining market share, while the major Chinese brands are losing market share.

https://www.idc.com/promo/smartphone-market-share/

https://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile/worldw...

"It's downright insulting to claim their hurts are something that countries on the other side of the world invented."

Not what was being claimed by anyone you're possibly responding to.

Read Active Measures to actually understand what is being discussed here, assuming it's available in your country. The author isn't from the US.

I should have been clearer. From September 1939 - May 1945 (when Germany surrendered), the stock market barely changed:

   September 1939: DJIA was 152.54
   May 1945: DJIA was 168.30

The bottom was few months after Pearl Harbor and pretty much straight up after that

I mean, you've now picked the bottom of the market as your starting point (and not the start of WW2), so by definition it goes up after that.

Exactly. Russia has been doing it for decades and it would be foolish to assume China didn't learn from them. Thomas Rid's "Active Measures" covers this in detail, and it's somewhat maddening to read, because it details how much of the civil strife we've experienced that was exacerbated by their actions.

https://www.amazon.com/Active-Measures-History-Disinformatio...

For those who are unaware of the claims of Chinese influence, a couple articles:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/09/business/china-russia-ai-...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/husband-code-pink-founder-nevil...

Previous coverage of Singham, who coincidentally is married to a co-founder of Code Pink:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/05/world/europe/neville-roy-...

Not saying these are correct and are proof, but this isn't some fringe concern from the MAGA crowd or something. It would also be a logical response on China's part to the US working to block them from getting GPUs, processor tech, etc.

The DJIA was more or less flat during WW2. Not sure where you've read that it was "great". During the middle of the war it was down 35-40%.

Plenty of underground forums sell exploits for people to do stuff like that, but you're talking $200, not a theoretical $500k.

You also don't need an RCE for 99% of that.

Are they only buying browser RCEs or are they also interested in RCEs deliverable via browser?

ex: Target hits website -> site delivers RCE for some software that is on the target's system

You don't need an RCE for that though. There's a lot of vulnerable plugins deployed everywhere.

This should've been obvious to any educated person.

Sigh... it's just so tiresome to run into people like you. Have a good life, my dude.

Yeah, I'd already responded to this twice before you made your insightful comment. Again, recency bias maybe, but I spent this week removing dozens of "for example" from the output of GPT-5.5.

Yeah, too many homes were built without fresh air intakes into the HVAC systems. There are definitely reasons you don't want it always pulling in outside air (temp and humidity differences, for example), but it would be nice to have the option to do it once a day just to freshen things up.

I get that it's common, but I just spent this week getting some patent docs ready, and was having GPT 5.5 help me with gathering some of the details. I had to remove "for example" dozens of times. So maybe it's just recency bias for me.

"For example" is AI, then your ability to reason is highly compromised.

Thanks for the insult, my friend.

Earlier this week I had GPT-5.5 help me complete some areas in three different patent docs that were just filed, and I had to remove "for example" from its output dozens of times when I was reviewing it for accuracy.

"Toxic atmosphere" definitely implies something that I don't seem to be finding in the actual paper. We regularly sit in environments that are 2-3x the levels of atmospheric CO2.

Also, was this paper AI written?

"There is now a considerable body of published data showing impacts at levels < 1,000ppm CO2, although the effects of exposure remain controversial."

Which is followed by this, with the very AI "For example" that seems to mostly contradict that statement?

"For example, one study found no impact of exposure to levels up to 15,000 ppm (Rodeheffer et al., 2018), however the study population was a group of highly trained US Navy submariners. Conversely, studies in young adults (Satish et al., 2012), office workers (Allen et al., 2016) and university staff/students (Snow et al., 2019) showed negative effects at CO2 levels as low as 950 ppm."

And then "Such studies are supported by assessment of CO2-induced changes in human brainwaves, measured by electroencephalography (EEG) combined with cognitive tests (reviewed in (Zhang et al., 2024)). Such studies show that exposure to CO2 between 1,000 and 2,500 ppm results in heightened brain activity."

"Such studies" ... "such studies". And these studies seem to contradict the proceeding statement even more?

It doesn't even match what's in the article.

"concluded that expected power demand from data centers was _a_ primary reason for $23 billion in customer price increases "

Also, it's weird that he describes PJM as "the organization that monitors the PJM market" when they describe themselves as "a regional transmission organization (RTO) that coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity" [0]. So are they monitors of the market or are they the market themselves?

I don't know... maybe I'm being picky, but the article just seems off. The whole bit about how data centers could maybe game the system by using less power during peak times also doesn't make sense - that's when they also have the highest demand. Pointing to cryptominers just makes me think he doesn't get what they do, which is basically arbitrage. Of course they stop when power costs go up, it eats up all of their profits and they can simply start back up when the costs go down.

[0] https://www.pjm.com/about-pjm

The government already does that.

   https://api.weather.gov/ 
   https://www.noaa.gov/nodd/datasets
   https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/cdo-web/

That is the understanding that you've been presented with, likely by people looking to mislead you, but that's not at all what our actual budget reflects. The social safety nets that we supposedly don't have take up around 2/3rds of our federal budget.

Climate.gov was not the centralized and only storage spot for climate data. There's petabytes of it all over the place.

You want data? https://www.noaa.gov/data or https://api.weather.gov/ or https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data are a good place to start.

Texas, with their evil leadership, generates significantly more solar and wind energy than California, and has significantly more energy storage.

So maybe just blaming this on a political viewpoint you don't like doesn't actually help anything?

https://www.reddit.com/r/charts/comments/1t5ud20/texas_vs_ca...

I'd call getting people with too much money and not enough common sense to spend their money a good thing for everyone. Sales taxes collected, property taxes on the store paid, income taxes on the employees and company, less generational wealth passed along, etc etc.

A lot of what is being said here could also be said of NBC packing Thursday nights with their top shows back in the day. They increased attention and revenue, but people spent a lot more time watching NBC because of it. Was that a problem?

They are not even trying to hide it — and I suppose it is not a secret at all: The more time users spend on Facebook and Instagram, the more money Meta makes.

Why would they try to hide something that is obvious?

With the decline of Twitter as the place that it seemed like everyone used to be on, other similar services seeing a small increase is not too surprising. I'm wondering if traffic from Threads, which they launched in 2023 (after Musk bought Twitter in fall of 2022), gets counted under Instagram, since you use your Instagram account to login? I get that Zuck and co want to say those increases are tied to their magical AI to please investors, but was it really?

Sorry, didn't see this until now. I just lease them, so I haven't paid for any maintenance on a vehicle for about 10 years.

The last balanced budget was in 2001 and it was passed by a Republican controlled House and Senate [0]. Clinton somehow gets complete credit for it, even though the executive branch doesn't directly control the budget and congress controls the power of the purse.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/106th_United_States_Congress

Are you under the impression that humanity could reach a state where there is never another major war?

I don't know how one would reach that conclusion, least of all a Major at the nation's leading military educational institute. Nothing "hell-bent" about it.

The US formed the UN to distribute funds?

Maybe the UN can levy the USA for this

The UN has no "levy" powers.

Huh? It's not semantics to point out that a project wasn't launched by Google, when the point was about a successful project launch from Google.