AI enables more mistakes to be made faster and more convincingly. You have more stuff being generated which means more of it (by absolute quantity) is probably wrong. You have less time to review it because there is more material. Of course everything the wrong stuff included can have analysis making an argument for it attached (courtesy of an LLM). And finally people writ large tend to treat computer output as infalliable.

This increases not just the risk of war crimes and general moral bankruptcy but also of escalation (see the recent Chinese ship close call or the older, and not AI related, bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade due to faulty intelligence) Also dropping multi million dollar missiles on non legitimate targets is a giant waste of money and more human analysis is likely cheaper.

This is how VTA light rail works in San José.

By default when creating a new thread or process under Fuchsia you don't have access to the kernel. You have to create the thread or process with explicit kernel access. Pity Fuchsia kinda got killed off (Ok its not completely dead yet but its slowed a lot. There still doesn't seem to be a 2026 roadmap either)

I would stay away from it for manuals and documentation as well. AI tends to like inserting meaningless and confusing clarification that is at best a waste of time.

Also if you don't understand what you are documenting enough to write the docs that is a problem.

It's more or less incoherent to pair the statement about those topics with the sentence that follows.

Charitably, they can be thinking that it's fine to have LLMs organize information intended for LLMs.

This is great until your city was built by a 50s urban planner. Past a certain amount of sprawl building functioning public transit becomes nearly impossible. LA and Santa Clara County come to mind here. LA can sort of work if you are on the metro and don't need transfers.

I kinda wish some day some dark wizard curses those two areas to lose 75% of their roads and parking lots and make everything a lot closer.

A lot of the Netherlands was rebuilt postwar in the 50s with exactly the kind of car-centric design you're talking about. But then in the 70s they realized their mistake and started to reverse it.

What I'm saying is-- don't be defeatist about this. In places where density is high enough (maybe not LA sprawl), you can fix this.

I dunno. Brasilia is the epitome of a city built by 50s urban planners, was highly structured around the car - and yet they managed to build a metro.

Asking for an OIG investigation would be more reassuring if Trump were not regularly firing inspector generals, replacing them with loyalists, and then using them to investigate his perceived enemies.

> It is a short sequence of raw bytes that only makes sense when read in a specific order.

This kind of useless sentence is what makes reading AI text so miserable

I want to make a public blacklist of people who pass off AI writing as their own words. In my view it is tantamount to fraud. It should be disclosed at the top of the page if AI was used.

Agreed, and I've gotten into arguments at work when bringing this up.

I don't think I used the word fraud, to me its plagiarism, but I suppose that's basically a subset of fraud.

The worst part is that the biggest offenders are often management.

I expect X units of information in Y words. Human writing delivers consistent amount of information per unit. I can bail out early. LLM writing ranges between X and 0. Typical addictive variable reward scheme.

Would you not consider this fraudulent?

I suppose I would, which is why I mentioned that while I had called it plagiarism, plagiarism (to me) seems like a subset of fraud. I wasn't trying to get in a discussion whether its fraud or not - either way I don't like it.

I would be much more surprised by a system of commands which could be read in any order.

I have to nope out of half the articles I read here lol

How about this one?

> That interpreter is not used just once. When a trigger later delivers a follow-up program, over any of the transports described further down, the exact same interpreter function runs it.

Very interesting, right? An interpreter that is not used just once. Because we all know about those one-time-use interpreters, but this one, is USED MULTIPLE TIMES.

/s

I bet this is Claude, and this is Anthropic’s fix for “it’s not X, it’s Y.”

If you are an American company US backdoors are annoying but hard to avoid given the government will find ways to compell access anyway. Adding potential avoidable foreign back doors does not improve your security.

I wouldn't tell a Chinese company to buy from Cisco. I wouldn't tell an American one to buy from Huawei.

These self defense groups sound great until you think about all the problems with vigilante groups. Also they have a history of turning into cartels.

That and all things being equal I suspect most of the people in these groups would rather not be fighting.

It's not an ideal situation, but since the Mexican government refuses to do its job and protect their people and uphold the law what choice do they have?

Right now these people are just doing whatever they can to survive but it's just treating the symptom. The source of the problem is the Mexican government who is either incompetent or happy to take bribes to look the other way while their citizens are left the mercy of paramilitary gangs.

What can the government do at this point? We are talking about criminal syndicates with basically standing armies. If the Mexican government goes to all out war it will lead to a humanitarian disaster.

They should send in the army. How is what's happening there now not already a war and a humanitarian disaster? The only difference is that the civilians are the ones forced into fighting and they're having to buy their guns from rival gangs to do it. Actual soldiers with the firepower of the government should be doing the fighting instead of random farmers.

Calderón did exactly that. Fought an all-out war with the cartels. 60,000 people dead and nothing changed.

He fought a war against unsanctioned drug trafficking. Drugs are not an enemy you can defeat. He should have gone to war against the cartels, but then I guess that's hard to do when your Secretariat of Public Security is working for them. Either way, as with any war, deaths are to be expected. Freedom and sovereignty are usually considered to be worth the cost.

What choice do they have?

This is not your usual vigilante group. This is a reaction to an overwhelming force of criminal gangs killing citizens and the government being powerless to stop them.

> This is a reaction to an overwhelming force of criminal gangs killing citizens and the government being powerless to stop them.

Is the Mexican government, with their tens of billions in military spending, actually "powerless" to stop these gangs? I very much doubt it.

There have been many examples of non-corrupt officials being elected and then killed.

The corruption isn't always "I want to get rich" type, sometimes it's "I don't want to be murdered in a horrific way" type.

If the cartels had more military fighting power and training than the entire Mexican army, air force, and navy the entire country would have been overthrown by now. If Mexico's entire armed forces really are outgunned and outclassed then I guess the cartels should have it. They might as well take Canada too since their military is roughly as powerful as Mexico's and there's a long list of countries with far less military spending then Mexico they could consider invading since they are so unstoppable.

The strength of a military or militant organization is not a binary concept. It is context dependent.. a remote mountain area is the kind of place that the military you describe simply is spread too thin to have much coverage of. Sure they could go beat an insurgent in a single battle but that insurgent will dissolve into the hillsides and re emerge later..

What other choice ? Politics are yet to give a solution after decades of problems.

Based on all the historical events, I'm guessing it'll eventually balance itself out. The violent vigilante groups are one critical weight on the scale. Without it, the cartels will have free-range to commit whatever atrocity they want without needing to think about the consequences.

Now, with these vigilante groups that speaks the exact same language that the cartels too understands, it gives those cartels a reason to think before they bully civilians. Because if they did it wrong, there's a chance some of them will start to lose bodyparts in a very unanesthetical way. If a few once incontestable cartel leaders puts on a show of crying and begging for mercy in a darknet video, it tends to educate everyone on what power really means potentially in a good way.

Of course, none of it is reasonable and civil, it's the darkest part of human behavior, but sadly sometimes it's the only way to communicate with the bad people. Mr. Hitler didn't surrender because the allies did a good job showing him that killing is bad, instead they bomb that rat in his own hole and scared him to death.

I don't like violence and I don't like people who uses it unnecessarily, but it's still a tool in the toolbox just in case the opponent is that unrecoverably bad.

This is not really a question. Accidental patent infringement is still patent infringement. Just because you used new trendy technology to do it does not mean that it isn't infringement.