Spreading misinformation is different to suggesting possible reasons.

The real solution is blocking all ad tech. I'll show anyone who asks me how to set up an ad blocker in a decent browser.

Is it time to run every document we download through a sandboxed local LLM to clean it up on the fly? How long then before the ad tech companies start prompt injecting?

What a strange leap. There's rather a lot we can do to keep regular adblocking going and we don't have to just accept what Google deigns to give us. Wasting a bunch of GPU power to have an LLM hallucinate which parts of a page to delete hardly seems like a solution to me.

It was mostly an absurdist comment. I can squint and see this sort of thing coming though.

To keep with the current parlance, "safe adblocker" would seem to fit better. Safe for whom, I think we all already know.

The actual URL was the least sketchy part of that story.

Elixir has forever ruined me for other languages. Every new PL I dip my toe into gets measured against it. Jose and the core team seem to always land on the right decisions, or at least very good ones.

Thanks for this call out. I have not checked on Pine devices much since a disappointing early Pinebook.

No worries, and thanks for your service -- people buying possibly-disappointing early devices definitely enables the newer devices to exist :)

Why is highly organized/systematized violence preferable?

A government that cannot commit violence is toothless.

How do you enforce court rulings?

We shouldn't be ignorant of how the violence is committed and restrictions should be numerous and enforced for sure.

But presuming a meaningful government that cannot commit violence can exist is unrealistic.

The earnest answer is that it's more predictable than random violence, and its predictability makes it somewhat more preventable.

That said, there is a tendency for a system to drift away from this predictability as it's subjected to "review" by people who really, really want a particular outcome, regardless of the systemically-proscribed conclusion. "Bespoke" judgments for edge cases undermines the principle of predictability, which makes a return to "random" "coercion" desirable for some (as those who coerce in anarchy generally have less absolute power than a large system does).

But then, how do you show mercy (people are driven to do so) in a zero-tolerance environment?

This is the tension.

Why are you under the impression that you have a choice?

Those that are violent will always exist, and will always attempt to leverage their willingness for violence, and those that are able to - through luck or circumstance - gain leverage will be able to use that leverage to consolidate more until they have a hegemony on violence.

That's simply an observational fact of human history.

Governments are a way of occupying that opportunity space with some structure that _organizes_ that otherwise disorganized "cut people's faces up and flay them alive" sort of violence, and replaces it with "you get to grumble about the taxman every year" sort of violence. The averager person loses more freedom when there isn't a government around. The average violent psychopath gains more freedom (to become the government) when there isn't a government around.

That's why. Because I, and most people, prefer the paying taxes to getting flayed alive for insulting the duke. The government is a _binding_ of the monarchy and the warlord class to rules. If you look at the history of western democracy, it's extremely obvious.

I highly suspect that one of the reasons that Americans speak in this way.. that government as an idea is inherently some nonsensical or flawed concept - is compensation for their own sense of futility and inability to effect change on their own government.

It's hard for them to reconcile their self-image as "free thinking exemplars for the rest of the world" with the idea that they don't actually have control over their society. So they default to the idea that "all government is bad". If government by definition is bad, then obviously you can't accuse Americans and American culture of being particularly poor at creating a government that serves its people: it's just a fundamental structural problem, not a cultural problem.

To use internet slang: it's a cope.

Americans have exerted control over their society before, of course. It's usually through embarrassment of the people in power, with an implied capacity for violence waiting in the wings.

"So, why not now?" I dunno. Something about temporarily embarrassed trillionaires. Everyone seems afraid to dole out the kind of humiliation that would change elite behaviors, under the mistaken impression that what we're dealing with is not just "a tough job market" or "adulthood" or whatever, but our own measure of unnecessary (but politically effective) humiliation, drizzling down from on high.

Organized violence is self regulating if it wants to sustain itself.

They obviously want heavy regulation to make sure they do not have to compete long term. This is all just part of the base strategy.

It's a stupid strategy that will put the rest of the world ahead of the US on AI. Anthropic's value will suffer for it.

Went down this rabbit hole about "back is best" recommendation for babies. Turns out back is only best for the vanishingly tiny subset of infants prone to SIDS. And appreciably worse for everyone else. "Public health" means something different to bureaucrats.

Where can I read more about this? I've been pilled on the co-sleeping thing, but hadn't heard this about "back is best"