JarJarJedi
Streamlined derailments and counteridea reeducation
User ID: 1118
What seems to be missing here is common household. That's what most married couples do, and most friendships and other arrangements don't. Me and my wife have common bank account, which each of us can use independently, common property that we both use, etc. Treating it on the individual basis, ignoring that fact, would both clearly unjust (a family with one income would pay radically different taxes than a family with the same income but earned by two people, for example, even though they essentially are in the same financial situation) and would create a huge mess in practice. That aspect makes the marriage unique, as there aren't many other arrangements in the society where people essentially form a single economic unit long-term. Theoretically you could do it with your good friend, in practice pretty much nobody does. This is much more important, IMO, than "love".
Maybe because when I seen it, it was in "Russia has nukes, we must satisfy all their demands" form
If you believe the recent Woodward's book, that has been the essence of the US policy towards Russia for the current administration. They were all overcome by mortal fear of Russia using the nuke, likely due to bad intel (probably injected by Russia). And since Woodward is pretty much a sock puppet for the people who define that policy, I think it is believable.
Israel is using AI tools with little oversight to determine whether an individual is a Hamas operative.
I'm not sure what is actually being reported here. So far I see two facts being alleged - that Israel is using AI system to figure out who could be Hamas operative, which is 90% accurate (spectacular number if true, to the point I even suspect they are being over-optimistic), and that Israel is using phone tracking to locate specific suspects. The latter has nothing to do with AI, as for the former - I am not sure what is supposed to happen after a certain person has been identified as "90% likely to be Hamas operative". The article uses phrases like "automated kill chain", but there's no evidence or even allegation such thing actually exists in any meaning of the word "automated" - do they mean if the system identifies a person, he would be automatically targeted by some killing machine without human supervision? If so, why don't they say it explicitly and describe what this system is and how they know about it? If no, then what "automated" means?
And on the other hand, I am not sure what kind of oversight you would put on such a system. Let's assume you indeed had a system which with probability of 90% can tell you whether or not certain guy in Gaza is in Hamas. Now, how would you verify it? Obviously, if you had some better system, you'd use that one from the start. You could review the data yourself - but do you have better than 90% accuracy? I mean, if you spot some hilarious bug in the system - on the level of "black vikings" and other hilarious bugs in public LLMs, sure. You can block that. Like if the system marked every guy with name "Muhamad" as Hamas member, than you can notice it and overrule the system. But let's say you didn't notice that. Moreover, you tried it 100 times and went out and captured those guys and 90 of them admitted that yes they are in Hamas, or you found Hamas membership card on them and so on. E.g. let's assume 90% is true. How do you oversight that system then? Verifying each person manually is impossible - there are like 50 thousands of them, and most of them are hiding and it's impossible to verify anything about them until they are either captured or dead. So what do you base your supervision on?
A cyberattack from Iran hit an Israeli bank, and maybe credit card users generally, blocking users off.
I couldn't get from that - which bank was that and what actually happened?
A simple solution is to set up the app on one box and a standby on the next box. If it goes down, you simply respond and assess and confirm yes, the primary is down. Lets start the standby.
Then the standby goes down, or doesn't start. Your next move? You start debugging shit when people around you run with their hair on fire and scream bloody murder at you, the system is down over 2 kiloseconds and you still didn't fix it yet, are you actually sent from the future to ruin as all?
And note that this will definitely happen at 3am, when you are down with the flu, your internet provider is hit by a freak storm and your dog ate something and vomited over every carpet in your house. That's always how it happens. It never goes the optimistic way. And then you realize it'd be cool if you had some tools that can help you in these situations - even it it means paying a little extra.
While you're entering day three debugging some inscrutable GCP error I'm shipping.
But are you? My experience has been k8s makes shipping - and by that I don't mean compiling the code (or whatever people do to package python apps in your country) and throwing it over the fence for some other people to figure out how to run it, but actually creating a viable product consumable over the long periods of time by the end user - way smoother than any solution before it. Sure, I can build a 50-component system from the base OS up and manage all the configs and dependencies manually. Once. When I need to do it many times over and maintain it - in parallel to debugging bugs and developing new code - I say fuck it, I need something that automates it. It's not even the fun part. Yes, it means I'll pay the price in pure speed. If I were in a hedge fund doing HFT, I wouldn't pay it. 99% of places I've seen it's prudent to pay it. My time and my mental health is more valuable than CPU time. Not always, but often.
And you have a perfect memory.
I guess we will never know who that was and what were their motives.
Devices With ‘Free Gaza’ Messages Found at Ballot Box Fires. Ah yes, the infamous "Free Gaza" right-wing extremists!
Yes, but not always. Some banks (e.g. WellsFargo) support protocol that actually allows to give aggregators limited access without giving away the password. Unfortunately, not all banks support it.
So it seems that there are some vulnerabilities in the early voting system.
So there's some moisture in the Pacific Ocean!
But this particular thing is not going to disrupt anything important. We all know where Portland leans, and if due to unlikely turn of events, this will lead to one hyper-leftist local candidate losing to another hyper-leftist local candidate, nobody but other local hyper-leftists would care, and they like it this way. "Forget it, Jake, it's Portland".
What's strange? When people consider violent acts done, in the city known by the multitude of violent acts performed by left wing extremists that has been tolerated and encouraged for years, and when there are no base nor numbers nor hope in the area for right wing extremists and they do not gain absolutely anything from it, then people go with most plausible explanation and exclude the least plausible? I think it's the least strange way of doing it.
Some people just want to watch the world burn. Portland is where their safe space is.
Right. Because setting two mailboxes on fire is going to turn Portland red. Nope, there's nothing to "consider" here, it's not even good as a Disney movie plot. And that's a very low bar.
USA today joins the festivities: https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-usa-today-declines-to-endorse-kamala-for-president-after-backing-biden-in-2020
Maybe they realized there's a real chance of Harris losing, and being on the losing side is not super fun. "We are neutral objective observers and we criticize Trump because he's bad" is a stronger position than "we were on the losing side and now we're sore so we'll dump on Trump no matter what", and that's the position they are looking to occupy.
More influence how? If he wins, the swamp will kick into #resistance mode the next day after his win is announced. What exactly will he be able to do more than he was able to do in 2017 and why?
Looks like Israel took a very conservative route. Only military objects - which given Iran government a lot of deniability, you can't just come to a military base and see what really has been blown up there, so Iranians can claim anything they want internally about the damage. I understand a lot of air defense was hit, which serves double purpose: first, showing Iranians that they are vulnerable (since if air defense can't even protect itself, no chance they can protect anything else), and second, enabling further strikes with much more damaging results if they don't get the message. It also led to extremely low number of casualties, could probably be much higher if industry or infrastructure objects were hit. So basically Israel is telling Iran "we can hurt you real bad, but we choosing not to, take the message and calm down". We'll see if they would.
Yes, she can prepare the word salad and serve it, but you can't survive 3 hours on that. You can't survive any serious amount of time, and not with a counterparty that might call you on that. And she seems to be either incapable or under severe prohibition from talking about anything genuinely and on substance.
As for what happened to her - maybe deep inside she realizes the same thing many of us realize - she has no business being where she is, and it wasn't her decision to be there, she didn't earn any of it and she's there only because some other people are using her, blowing her up like a frog with a straw. That can't be a comfortable feeling. People may hate Trump as much as they want, but I think even his enemies believe Trump does things that Trump wants to do. Even for his enemies - you can't think he's a future Hitler and also think he's a nobody that has nothing of his own. He's a figure. Harris isn't. She never won anything on strength of her achievements, and without the vast party machine she's nobody. I can't know if she realizes it, but if she does, that certainly can't be comforting.
I don't think among the superheroes Trump is a Superman. Superman is a Lawful Good with both qualities dialed to 11. Trump is more like Chaotic Good.
I don't watch too much of the election stuff, but when I see clips of Trump doing the speeches or interviews, I always notice this - he's loving what he's doing. He likes to speak to the audience, he has a good time doing it, and it can be seen. He can shoot breeze for 3 hours and he's enjoying it. Politicians are professional bloviators, but I haven't seen many of them that have the same quality. It looks effortless when he's doing it. I don't think Harris has this quality.
A tiny vibe shift I'd say. It'd be a big vibe shift when Congress candidates would dare to speak the name again, this is not happening yet. And given how overregulated everything is, building anything will be prohibitively expensive unless regulators are told to stop their shit. And only lawmakers can do that, and to make them to do that they shouldn't be afraid that they will be blamed for giving us all cancer through bad juju. That part didn't happen yet. So some guys like Microsoft can afford to have private nuclear plants, because they play by different rules anyway, but the rules for normal people so far are the same.
I use it with Dropbox (I use Dropbox anyway for other stuff so no additional investment needed) and it works just fine for me. There are plugins for encrypting stuff too.
Batteries may be plausible. Energy is iffy - what if it turns it's actually has to be nuclear? You may be IQ400, but other people still aren't and they are afraid of bad nukular juju, and your IQ400 arguments do not convince them because they can't understand most of it and hate you for that too. A lot of people would hate you - from traditional energy producers all around the world to the woke ecologists that wouldn't be happy with the idea that the solution for everything they thought as a problem is not worshipping Mother Gaia but more technology. I'm not even sure about social things - so far success in doing anything social is correlated negatively if anything with the IQ...
It is just sad to read this after 4 years of Trump presidency in which he was unable not only to come even in the same neighborhood as any "authoritarianism", winged or wingless, but to be able to govern properly as the stature of the President in the presidential republic implied. He was one of the weakest presidents in terms of how much he had things under his personal control, and his plans have been routinely derailed both by deep swamp resistance and by his own party. And yet, we get the same scary story about how he's literally hitler we got in 2016. Makes one think, however "rational" we try to be, our prejudices will come through at the end and that will be it.
More options
Context Copy link