Not just that point but there’s a certain portion of people that seem to think anything other than total opposition is total support.

Is that offer still open to friendly nations? As I understand it, they have been mining the strait, and things just seem a bit chaotic to mine it in a way that leaves a safe and known path, plus how to communicate that path to those they want to let through while denying those they don’t. Unless the minea are remote instead of proximity, but I think part of the point was to make the embargo passive so that carpet bombing the area wouldn’t be an effective counter.

They might have thought they could hold the world economy hostage to force other counties to act. Or the whole wanting things to get better is an act and the economic disruption is the whole point.

Oh if the alliance is non-nato then it means he might honour it or something?

Oh they might be intending to capture that strait to minesweep it and open it back up. Which will probably continuously cost lives of those holding it while boats get targeted by drones anyways.

It was a different commenter, though I also like snacking on dark chocolate chips. Baker’s chocolate is also good, but the consistency of the squares isn’t great for snacking.

I just read it as a tip for how to get chocolate anyways, even if all the chocolate bar makers stop using it. The chocolate-like but cheaper stuff they are using instead of chocolate sounds more like the dustbowl/depression era tricks to enjoy food while you can’t afford it.

Though part of my perspective is from getting my cooking to a level where store bought prepared stuff is just the easy/convenient option, not the high quality one (for health or taste). I also love dark chocolate and prefer the high cocoa content ones over must chocolate bars.

And I’m confused about how you found anything in that comment dystopian. Though I’m assuming that name I didn’t recognize is a brand name for an actual chocolate producer. Hopefully it isn’t a brand name for something similar to chocolate but not lol.

Yeah, I think sucralose is the only one that doesn’t taste awful to me. Like I’ve always been skeptical of the defense of aspartame because it tastes like something I shouldn’t be eating. I was looking forward to stevia back when it got popular, but it also has that taste (I’m guessing from leftover solvent, since it’s not water soluable like sugar).

There’s plenty of ways to make things taste great without relying so heavily on sweetness. I hate the western food industry’s obsession with it along with the capitalist obsession with selling as much as possible, because it’s resulted in the less sugar I’ve wanted to see instead meaning the sugar is replaced with other chemicals that taste sweet (and “chemically”).

And I doubt safety studies looked at anything beyond “does it so obviously cause issues that we’ll be sued the moment we try to sell this?”

A missile could carry something as light as nothing or as heavy as ISS modules. And anchors don’t even have to be that heavy, they just need to be denser than water and generate enough friction with the bottom to keep whatever is attached from moving too far.

Though they could even use catapults or trebechets mounted to the backs of trucks to mine it.

Lol I grew up in rural areas and remember my mom being excited about the northern lights and watching them from our front porch, wondering what was so special about some lights in the night sky, which was already full of lights.

At least my daughter has been growing up in towns all her life so far and appreciated seeing them this past year, unlike the little shit I was.

Then fuck them all. The individuals involved, just “following orders” or giving them, should have all been charged with fraud.

Any ideas that can’t be challenged are just dogmas. And a mindset of “any opposition to any of my ideas for any reason means you’re an enemy” is just tribalism.

It’s just as stupid on the left as it is on the right. The world isn’t black and white.

Can you give examples of things that were called genocide but actually weren’t and just watered the word down?

Yeah, it’s good enough that it even had me fooled, despite all my “it just correlates words” comments. It was getting to the desired result, so I was starting to think that the framework around the agentic coding AIs was able to give it enough useful context to make the correlations useful, even if it wasn’t really thinking.

But it’s really just a bunch of duct tape slapped over cracks in a leaky tank they want to put more water in. While it’s impressive how far it has come, the fundamental issues will always be there because it’s still accurate to call LLMs massive text predictors.

The people who believe LLMs have achieved AGI are either just lying to try to prolong the bubble in the hopes of actually getting it to the singularity before it pops or are revealing their own lack of expertise because they either haven’t noticed the fundamental issues or think they are minor things that can be solved because any instance can be patched.

But a) they can only be patched by people who know the correction (so the patches won’t happen in the bleeding edge until humans solve the problem they wanted AI to solve), and b) it will require an infinite number of these patches even to just cover all permutations of everything we do know.

Here’s an example I ran into, since work wants us to use AI to produce work stuff, whatever, they get to deal with the result.

But I had asked it to add some debug code to verify that a process was working by saving the in memory result of that process to a file, so I could ensure the next step was even possible to do based on the output of the first step (because the second step was failing). Get the file output and it looks fine, other than missing some whitespace, but that’s ok.

And then while debugging, it says the issue is the data for step 1 isn’t being passed to the function the calls if all. Wait, how can this be, the file looks fine? Oh when it added the debug code, it added a new code path that just calls the step 1 code (properly). Which does work for verifying step 1 on its own but not for verifying the actual code path.

The code for this task is full of examples like that, almost as if it is intelligent but it’s using the genie model of being helpful where it tries to technically follow directions while subverting expectations anywhere it isn’t specified.

Thinking about my overall task, I’m not sure using AI has saved time. It produces code that looks more like final code, but adds a lot of subtle unexpected issues on the way.

Nice, enjoy!

An alternative that will avoid the user agent trick is to curl | cat, which just prints the result of the first command to the console. curl >> filename.sh will write it to a script file that you can review and then mark executable and run if you deem it safe, which is safer than doing a curl | cat followed by a curl | bash (because it’s still possible for the 2nd curl to return a different set of commands).

You can control the user agent with curl and spoof a browser’s user agent for one fetch, then a second fetch using the normal curl user agent and compare the results to detect malicious urls in an automated way.

A command line analyzer tool would be nice for people who aren’t as familiar with the commands (and to defeat obfuscation) and arguments, though I believe the problem is NP, so it won’t likely ever be completely foolproof. Though maybe it can be if it is run in a sandbox to see what it does instead of just analyzed.

Oh I agree, but as long as they can find people to buy their weapons (even on credit that depends on successfully using them) or weild them for them, they won’t be going anywhere. And automation is quickly approaching the point where they won’t even need others to choose to fight.

Problem with arms races is you can’t end them unless everyone agrees to end them, otherwise you just forfeit.

That “refusing to continue communication” might have even just been “couldn’t hear or feel vibrations from incoming calls”. It’s also possible he thought they weren’t being helpful and decided it was a waste of time to rely on them (all depends on how that initial call went, though the fact that they say he didn’t ask for help but he says he did could suggest a communication breakdown or tone mismatch).

It did sound like he was unprepared for how to handle such an emergency if they didn’t even use the warming gear they had. But the question is at what point does unpreparedness become criminal and did he really have extra responsibility for her safety even if he thought they were equally experienced, or that she was at least experienced enough to handle her own safety? Unless the defense is lying completely, it sounds like the prosecution isn’t approaching this in good faith and might be seeking revenge instead of justice.