but not in the house.

You were saying?

“This is a safe space. You are not welcome here.”

(Go read [The Conversation’s] article if you want to know more – it is a very good read)

Thanks for the recommendation, Joachim. It sure would’ve been nice if you’d linked to it.

This article seems to try to take The Conversation’s compelling comparison of anti-AI to Ludditism and then shoehorn it into FOSS. I can agree it’s related as left-libertarian, but this article’s idea feels like it came about after they read The Conversation’s and just did it worse for a less relevant connection.

If [Take Back CTRL] isn’t in line with the philosophy of the Luddites, I don’t know what is. Dignity, self-determination, agency. That’s what it’s always been about.

Okay, no, Luddites weren’t just generically anti-every-bad-thing-about-tech (and two of those things listed are the same thing); they destroyed machines as high-value targets to get early industrial manufacturers to stop abusing labor.

I’m not trying to convince you of anything with this article; I am not looking for converts. I am just trying to point out that the FOSS movement is not anything new, not really.

So you’re trying to convince us that the FOSS movement is not anything new; did you ever learn what a persuasive essay is? Also, the headline and subheader is: “[…] I Use Linux; And Maybe You Should Too”. Trying to convince someone of something isn’t nefarious, and it’s staggering that someone would write this in a published opinion piece.

I like the ideals of this author, but their piece is poorly argued, meandering, and generally feels stream-of-conciousness.

AutoZone fucked my dad. (It’s the first retail estblishment that came to mind.)

Well except “no” because the shortening is just an added bonus from the main benefit which is to make it generally more accurate. “My PC” unfixes it.

Yeah, this is on the level of those conspiracy theories that insist the Illuminati or whatever are constantly leaving enciphered clues about their existence in plain sight for no practical reason except so that Dave can post about it online after a long day at AutoZone.

As an added bonus, “This PC” is more concise in terms of character count and syllables – which actually is pertinent for something that might get namedropped a million times a day.

Fake as fuck, unfortunately. NASA-TN-D-7110, for example (second row, third column) is actually titled “Minimizing the area required for time constants in integrated circuits”.

Thank you – the person I replied to – for actually being the only reasonable reply. I profoundly agree with anticapitalism and self-sufficient, grassroots communities (of which I participate actively in several), and I appreciate that solely voting is no longer a viable strategy. I just don’t like your defeatist message tacitly saying that people shouldn’t vote because anyone else would still be bad and/or part of a flawed system. We have to acknowledge that Trump has proven himself a uniquely horrifying threat to humanity, and that has to be reflected at the ballot box in 2026 and 2028.

We’re doing whataboutism now too? Should I have brought my intellectual dishonesty bingo card?

Oh cool, good to know the shameless fucks who both sides’d in 2024 and helped get us into this mess still have no shame and are here to help make the 2026 midterms worse too.

Mathematician mfs when I solve the sphere packing problem with infinite efficiency by assuming the spheres are bosonic:

You’re getting downvoted for pointing out that this technology, at optimal efficiency on Earth, generates about 1/100,000 the power of a solar panel. “Not very useful” is an understatement (it’s currently fucking useless). Even worse: the title saying “at night” implies a terrestrial usage and misdirects from this technology’s only potential useful application in the future once and if it becomes much better – namely on deep-space missions.

This research is interesting. I hope it yields something useful. Your comment is still 100% correct for the foreseeable future.

Edit: I was conflating the optimal efficiency of 1 W/m² and the actual efficiency of 1/100,000 the solar panel. Sorry for introducing that confusion.

Petition to make the names less confusing by renaming the top one to “Bear” and the bottom one to “Twink”.

Jaguars are the leading cause of male-pattern baldness.

It’s a trick. The jaguars killed Sebastián and used his phone to lure in more prey.

(Edit: As someone who’s contacted experts for research to improve Wikipedia, they’ve all seemed really happy that someone was interested enough in their subject to ask. If you have a question you’ve tried and failed to find an answer for, the worst they can ever do is say “no” or not reply. Try it sometime!)

since you’re also apparently "too lazy to check linked sources:…

I hope you realize I said:

Anyway, I acknowledge now that Politico has used “sensitive” in place of “classified”.

The part about “functional illiteracy” was my way of trying to be a rude asshole, but now I’m actually concerned.

which this is, and not ‘the context of the us government’… ya dingbat

“in the context of US government documents”… ya dingbat. Living with functional illiteracy must be so difficult, but it understandably makes it really hard to just dip into an article and check the first paragraph before commenting.

Anyway, I acknowledge now that Politico has used “sensitive” in place of “classified”. The point about that not being what “sensitive” means, however, is ancillary to the point that it is not hard at all to just check an article every once in a while, and it’s not journalists’ fault that you’re unwilling to do that. The headline got across its point fine. We’re not ten years old, and the news isn’t a TikTok feed. It took me 10 seconds to click the article and read just the first paragraph. I have really bad attention problems, and this is sad even to me.

headlines should be a bit more specific.

The information is literally in the first sentence of the article that I don’t think you read:

The interim head of the country’s cyber defense agency uploaded sensitive contracting documents into a public version of ChatGPT last summer, triggering multiple automated security warnings that are meant to stop the theft or unintentional disclosure of government material from federal networks, according to four Department of Homeland Security officials with knowledge of the incident.

It’s not journalists’ fault that you want to consume the news as a series of disconnected headlines like you’re in a dopamine famine. This headline conveys the gist excellently; the fact that they were contracting documents is superfluous, while the fact they were sensitive is the entire problem.

Also, it can’t mean he “uploaded national security secrets” because that’s definitionally not what “sensitive” means in the context of US government documents.

Does ChatGPT apparently need to be brought up in literally every conversation about schizophrenic people now regardless of direct relevance?

Anyway, if you’re interested diving deeper, Fredrik Knudsen (Down the Rabbit Hole) made a great video on Davis and TempleOS back in 2018.