jj4211

Yeah, they are frequently just parroting things like CVE notices as highlighted by a fairly stupid scanning tool.

The security ecosystem has been long diluted because no one wants to doubt a "security" person and be wrong, and over time that has made a pretty soft context for people to get credibility as a security person.

As an AI language model, I'm unable to address your concerns.

If someone is claiming God is on their side, then absolutely they should not be trusted.

A good example was Huckabee's message to Trump where he says he shouldn't listen to humble old Huckabee, but he should listen to God, who, coincidentally, is saying exactly the same thing as Huckabee.

If you have your faith but make no assertions about it's validity over other opinions nor that it confers divine authority to the words or deeds of any person, cool, I respect that faith. I'm inclined to have some faith myself, but I'm not about to claim any of it is more than my personal wild guesses and hope.

However organized religion is generally exploitable and bad people take advantage...

Sure just take the fun out of it why don't you

Good news, they find a treatment regimen that when applied to mice cause them to have a health span several times longer than the average health span of a mouse.

Bad news, the treatment regimen when applied to humans causes them to have a health span several times longer than the average health span of a mouse.

Basically AI is generally a decent answer to the needle in a haystack problem. Sure, a human with infinite time and attention can find the needle and perhaps more accurately than an AI could, but practically speaking if there's just 10 needles in a haystack it's considered a lost cause to find any of them.

With AI it might find in that same stack 30 needles, of which only 7 of them are the needles, which means the AI finds more wrong answers than right, but ultimately you do end up finding 7 needles when you would have missed all 10 before, coming out ahead.

So long as you don't let an AI rule out review of a scan that a human really would have reviewed, it seems a win to potentially have more overall scans get a decent review and maybe catch things earlier in otherwise impractical preventative scans

The education being a debt trap is at least in part due to good intentions gone wrong.

College was a little expensive and they wanted it more accessible, so they tried to make it nice and easy to borrow money.

Universities responded to the influx of cash by... Charging more money...

We tried to fix affordability by just flooding that market with loans with no regulation in place to constrain the universities or the loans.

No need to abolish ICE, just return it to what it was in 2015 or so.

We don't need essentially a whole new authoritarian police with more funding than any other such agency ever and more than two branches of the military, with ability to grab anyone at all with impunity (no due process required if they claim to think the target is not a citizen) and seemingly working to be able to also remove citizenship formally from people.

Half of the participants don't contribute anything, but need to look busy so they have to lengthen the call with inane banter.

Most of my emails have nothing to do with me, but everyone is CCing me on stuff, just in case I might be relevant somehow. Particularly and they made a convenient distribution list that includes 300 people and people send to it all the time. Someone I've never heard of on the other side of the world was going to be unavailable because they were sick and I get an email. The automated test for some project I have nothing to do with failed again last night and I get an email. Every morning I am greeted with about 100 emails that happened overnight. Even the handful of threads where I have some relevance, it goes off topic and I have no idea if I'm relevant to the new message or not until I read it.

Corporate communication is just screwed.

I'm with you on a lot of even most developers at a company making things worse rather than better.

However if for some reason a webinar is only going to be "live" with no recording to be provided, and further it may be a pointless session you don't need but work mandates, then I would be firing off whatever recording/transcription/summarization they allow me. Like my employer has manated every employee regardless of job attending 60 hours of AI webinars in the year, to give the illusion of being in tune with AI without bothering to actually have a plan. Mostly it's been people rambling without any actionable stuff trying to sound smart, absolutely every bit of it has been superficial, the speakers at best have toyed with prompts and read articles saying Nvidia gpus are useful. Not one of them have so much as even run a local model. There's nothing in these 60 mandated hours that will do anything but waste time.

Even for mandatory "all hands" where we can't all questions but at least I want to know what they are thinking, I'll get a recording and watch it at 2x speed.

If that concern were actually relevant and not merely an excuse, mob justice would fail to consider innocence. That's seen repeatedly. Merely an excuse seems likely, but...

The thing I could imagine is that the list being something like a contact list, and Epstein treated celebrity contact information as a status symbol. If the list is a ledger of otherwise off book transactions, or a lost of people complete with blackmail material, then I can't see how they could even try to make the argument about innocent caught up in the list.

Either way if they have a district list, put aside releasing the list for a moment, where's the legal system enforcement actions?

Using your daily moves in Tradewars 2002...