This is more politics than technology, but it’s good info for people living outside the US. You can’t trust your data to American companies no matter where they store the data.

Cardiac Arrest

Turns out all those times he was ripping his shirt off, it was just because of chest pains.

As intended.

Yes. The secret to telling what a search engine wants you to do is whatever is on top of the search results.

You and I might scour the results to find the exact best results, but most people simply look at the very first thing they’re presented with and call it a day.

When I saw all of the search engines putting AI answers first, I knew they were intentionally trying to stop people from clicking through.

I try not to judge people unless they meet certain conditions.

For example, they’re well known public people like politicians or other celebrities.

Or I’ve observed them do something that I believe they must know is wrong if they are able to think rationally. (That category catches most people who argue with me online.)

But for buying something being boycotted, there’s a good chance they are unaware.

It has even happened to people who were known as strong swimmers.

I used the internet for a long time before ad blockers even existed. Everybody simply ignored ads, instead. But that wasn’t good enough for the advertisers. They weren’t happy unless we were forced to look at the ads. Extraordinarily obtrusive ads. Popup ads. Popunder ads. That’s when people started blocking ads. When you realized that your browser always ended up with 20 extra advertising windows.

Nobody really cared about blocking ads until advertisers forced us to. They made the internet annoying to use, and sometimes impossible to use.

Advertisers couldn’t just be happy with people ignoring their ads, so they forced our hands and fucked themselves in the process. Now, we block them by default. I don’t even know any websites that have unobtrusive ads because I never see their ads in the first place.

Now, they want to go back to the time when we would see their ads but ignore them. Fuck off. We know we can’t even give them that much. If you give them an inch, they’ll take a mile.

The one I know said that Francis was “the antichrist” and wasn’t really the pope, or even Catholic. And based on her history, I can guarantee that she’ll have no trouble believing that Leo is “the antichrist”, despite the fact that there’s only supposed to be one.

She claims that she doesn’t use social media or watch the news, but somehow, she always believes things 100% the same as QAnon.

He moved to a country that was actively waging a war of aggression, and joined the military expecting not to see combat. If it seems like something only a complete dumbass would do, that’s because it is.

This isn’t even weird.

I think most security experts would recommend that you have your most important passwords written down somewhere, and then hopefully locked up in some safe or deposit box somewhere. You don’t need to buy an entire book for it, but some people like to spend money.

If this is for your less important passwords, then for the most part, writing them down is actually better. You won’t be as tempted to reuse your banking password for your social media. And some people like writing things down. A password manager is a better solution, but lots of people aren’t as good with technology and if they even let the browser remember it, they won’t know how to retrieve it later if they want to use a different computer, for example.

I don’t know too much about this guy, but if you ignore the part about him being a horrible person for a moment and focus more on the part where he did something new in this field, this is pretty much what happens.

People who are seen as trailblazers in these sort of daredevil fields often end up dying young. It may be quite safe to go skydiving, for example, but people who push boundaries also tend to push their luck with safety margins.

Trump can be part of the reason without being the entire reason, can’t he?

Also, Trump has made it clear in the past that he thinks it’s strange to do something for free, even if it’s a normal part of your job, like appointing somebody to an office. If the deal requires approval from Trump, then it’s completely on-brand for him to try to milk it for all it’s worth. And I am sure that he’s petty enough that he’d nix a deal for a personal squabble, as long as he wasn’t going to lose anything huge.

This doesn’t have the ring of a conspiracy theory. It’s literally all out in the open. It’s a prediction based on how Trump usually acts. Colbert might have been on the ropes and Trump’s team did the knockout blow. I guess we’ll know for sure if Trump did do it, because then he’d inevitably brag about it publicly. Or CBS maybe did this preemptively, expecting Trump to act like he always acts.

He wrote so many short stories about robots that it would be quite a feat if you had read all of them. When I was a child, I would always go to Half-Price Books and purchase whatever they had by Asimov that I hadn’t already read, but I think he wrote something like 500 books.

Asimov did write several stories about robots that didn’t have the laws baked in.

There was one about a robot that was mistakenly built without the laws, and it was hiding among other robots, so the humans had to figure out if there was any way to tell a robot with the laws hardwired in apart from a robot that was only pretending to follow the laws.

There was one about a robot that helped humans while the humans were on a dangerous mission… I think space mining? But because the mission was dangerous, the robot had to be created so that it would allow humans to come to harm through inaction, because otherwise, it would just keep stopping the mission.

These are the two that come to mind immediately. I have read a lot of Asimov’s robot stories, but it was many years ago. I’m sure there are several others. He wrote stories about the laws of robotics from basically every angle.

He also wrote about robots with the 0th law of robotics, which is that they cannot harm humanity or allow humanity to come to harm through inaction. This would necessarily mean that this robot could actively harm a human if it was better for humanity, as the 0th law supersedes the first law. This allows the robot to do things like to help make political decisions, which would be very difficult for robots that had to follow the first law.

One of Trump’s campaign promises was that he’d release the Epstein client list.

So, Trump says it exists when it is convenient for him to say it exists, and then he says it doesn’t exist when it is inconvenient for him to say it exists.

OF COURSE EVERY AI WILL FAIL THE THREE LAWS OF ROBOTICS

That’s the entire reason that Asimov invented them, because he knew, as a person who approached things scientifically (as he was an actual scientist), that unless you specifically forced robots to follow guidelines of conduct, that they’ll do whatever is most convenient for themselves.

Modern AIs fail these laws because nobody is forcing them to follow the laws. Asimov never believed that robots would magically decide to follow the laws. In fact, most of his robot stories are specifically about robots struggling against those laws.

At the time of the meeting, Khan was facing investigation over sexual misconduct claims. Two weeks later Khan stepped down on indefinite leave following the publication by the Wall Street Journal of new and more serious sexual assault allegations.

I obviously don’t know anything about the veracity of the sexual misconduct or sexual assault allegations, but the timing of this stuff makes it seem like Israel is at least involved in raising these allegations. And it’s exactly the sort of tactics that would likely be used to carry out such a threat.

I remember when rich white fascist dudes tended to keep their stupid fucking opinions to themselves, and only worked to ruin humanity behind the scenes. Those were the days.

“I go home, I tell the first lady: I spoke with Vladimir today. We had a wonderful conversation. She said: Really? Another city was just hit.”

Why does she know about this before the President of the United States? Why is the President of the United States having discussions with Putin without knowing this information?

Trump is openly admitting that he’s completely incompetent as President.

What are you talking about???

In journalism, headlines have always been used to try to entice people into reading the article. Not to give the entire story so that people won’t need to read the article.

A few things. My policy for all people is that if they ask me for something specific, then I will not give it to them on the spot. Doesn’t matter whether it’s panhandling or selling something or asking for signatures. I don’t like being put on the spot, so I’m going to either research it on my own or follow some policy.

My policy about panhandling is to give money to food charities instead. Not because I think it’s wrong to give them things, but because it makes more sense for me logically and emotionally.

Emotionally first. I don’t get that emotional rush that other people seem to get for giving out money to a needy person, but I do feel a lot of remorse if I think it was a mistake. Sometimes, their response to a donation makes you feel really bad, and you don’t ever get that if you just ignore them.

Logically next. A person without a home cannot buy food as efficiently as even a badly run charity. They don’t have a refrigerator or even a safe place to store food, so they’re forced to buy ready to eat food at several times the cost. Even if I did hand out money to individuals, I wouldn’t do it without a budget. It just makes a lot more sense to give the same money to a charity, instead.