sensors are more effective than cameras and only stay 0.1 point behind a sensor + camera configuration [0]... well manners when using reverse gear on a public space can go a long way
We don't know that none of the names are real. And even if they aren't, the article is still showcasing his failed attempt at doxing the owner of archive.today and providing a starting point for anyone else wanting to try.
> they were all already posted publicly previously
Doxing very often consists of nothing more than collecting data from a bunch of public sources
> Doxing very often consists of nothing more than collecting data from a bunch of public sources
I simply don't agree that this looks like doxing. No addresses or even any private information were reported. It's just a Google using WhoIs data and, in one case, the person said, in a public forum, that archive.is is "my website." Why would they have said that if they were worried about people finding out who it belongs to?
If they'd have stumbled upon an address to a private residence and reported that, sure, that would look like doxing. I just don't see it here.
I simply don't agree with that, either. It just seems like journalism to me. No details were reported that would reasonably be expected to compromise anyone's safety. Why should it be disallowed to investigate the ownership of a website? People used to do this all the time when they were going to order products from a web store they'd never used before, to try to deduce if it was trustworthy. They'd look up the owner, verify that the store has a physical address, etc. Were they not supposed to be doing that? They're just supposed to never Google any of that and just pray instead, because, if they learn any of that information, they've done something morally reprehensible? That's absurd.
And, to that point, archive.is isn't so different from a store. They accept donations, so it seems perfectly reasonable to ask and answer questions about where the donations go IMO. Is it unreasonable to look at and report on Archive.org's nonprofit details?
What does that even mean? Are you trying to suggest that journalism is inherently okay? A piece of despicable journalism simply cannot exist?
>No details were reported that would reasonably be expected to compromise anyone's safety.
So it's okay because he failed at what he set out to do? I'd counter that regardless of whether or not the doxing was successful, publishing this information serves no other purpose but to aid future attempts.
>Why should it be disallowed to investigate the ownership of a website?
You have to be kidding, I feel like anyone with even just the most basic social skills would be able to understand that absolutely nobody gives a shit about what you do as long as it doesn't affect other people.
> And, to that point, archive.is isn't so different from a store. They accept donations, so it seems perfectly reasonable to ask and answer questions about where the donations go IMO.
Obviously it is very different from a store.
Besides, why would you spend time trying to identify the owner of a store who is obviously not interested in identifying themselves? Surely the right choice is to pass in approximately 100% of such cases.
> People will tell me again to not mix politics with software/business. Doing so surely impacts the popularity of Notepad++: talking about politics is exactly what software and commercial companies generally try to avoid. The problem is, if we don’t deal with politics, politics will deal with us. We can choose to not act when people are being oppressed, but when it’s our turn to be oppressed, it will be too late and there will be no one for us. You don’t need to be Uyghur or a Muslim to act, you need only to be a human and have empathy for our fellow humans.
Do you have any sources for either or both of "billions" and "known about for a decade" that aren't a figurehead of the current US administration? Because this all smells a lot like "the immigrants are catching and eating cats and geese" story which also turned out to be a lie.
The fraud in Minnesota is upsetting. Fraud also appears to be nationally prevalent:
“New federal data released by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) shows the overall rate of improper payment in Minnesota’s Medicaid program is far below national averages.
In the review released this week, CMS found an error rate of slightly over 2.1%, compared to a national average of 6.1%. The data for the review was compiled before the Minnesota Department of Human Services began implementing new strategies to minimize the risk of fraud and harden its systems against bad actors.”
Okay, so aggressive taxation should then have its (proven) benefits weighed against the (dubious) benefits of having 30% of your millionaires change their legal residence to be elsewhere.
I think taxes still handily win with room to spare. Even more: plenty of those rich people are still in NY and participating in its economy (legal residence != where you actually physically live, especially if you have resources to game residence by owning multiple properties).
What is it if not a punishment? If you’re a high earner (not obscene earner, mind you) you already pay 50+% in taxes, on top of that you now have to pay even more?
Couldn’t it just as easily be equivalent to saying “you grew this year, so contribute some money back to society for enabling you to have the educated hiring base/financial infrastructure/physical infrastructure that enabled you to grow”?
Like, sure, you don’t owe growth taxes for a quarter when you didn’t grow. But why should you be refunded just because prior taxable growth isn’t denominated in money in a bank account?
> you grew this year, so contribute some money back to society for enabling you to have the educated hiring base/financial infrastructure/physical infrastructure that enabled you to grow
Apparently paying for gas, water, electricity, property taxes, taxes on everything you buy isn’t enough, now you have to “contribute for enabling”. What’s next? Pay because they “enable you to breathe”?
Here's a sad prediction: over the coming few years, AIs will get significantly better at critical evaluation of sources, while humans will get even worse at it.
I wish I could disagree with you, but what I'm seeing on average (especially at work) is exactly that: people asking stuff to ChatGPT and accepting hallucinations as fact, and then fighting me when I say it's not true.
Hot take: Humans have always been bad at this (in the aggregate, without training). Only a certain percentage of the population took the time to investigate.
For most throughout history, whatever is presented to you that you believe is the right answer. AI just brings them source information faster so what you're seeing is mostly just the usual behavior, but faster. Before AI people would not have bothered to try and figure out an answer to some of these questions. It would've been too much work.
The secret sauce about having good understanding, taste and style (both for coding and writing) has always been in the fine tuning and RHLF steps. I'd be skeptical if the signals a few GitHub repos or blogs generate at the initial stages of the learning are that critical. There's probably a filter also for good taste on the initial training set and these are so large not even a single full epoch is done on the data these days.
Jujutsu has been the tool that actually got me into making full use of version control software. Before, through multiple attempts at grasping at the deeper fundamentals, I only learned the bare minimum git commands I needed to make commits and branches, and very careful merges. Jujutsu maps to a much clearer and simpler mental model. Blockchains are nifty and all, but awfully inconvenient to work with as meatbags.
reply