array_key_first

The reality is that Trump voters were (are?) dumb as rocks and tricked by simple populist messaging. There was nothing harris could've done short of succumbing to populism herself, and cloaking her campaign in dishonesty, fear, and simpleton reasoning.

Maybe she shouldve done that, but you can see why she didn't.

Anthropics principles are extraordinarily weak from an absolute point of view.

Don't surviel the US populace? Don't automate killing, make sure a human is in the loop? No, sorry, don't automate killing yet.

Yeah dude, I'm sure just about any burglar I pull out of prison will agree.

Listen yes, it's good compared to like 99% of US companies. But that really speaks more to the absolute moral bankruptcy of most companies, and not to Anthropics principles.

That being said, yes we should applaud anthropic. Because yes this is rare and yes this is a step in the right direction. I just think we all need to acknowledge where we are right now, which is... not a good place.

I think it's called grok, grog sounds like a caveman name.

Actually they both sound like caveman names. I understand the confusion.

Well if we create skynet but Grok (groknet?) we won't have to worry about it.

It really couldn't have, because it's investment. The government invests in London because it has proven, and continues to prove, it pays off.

Yes it's true that the rest of the UK could benefit from more investment and that MIGHT make otherwise economically defunct areas slightly less economically defunct. Keyword might. London is a "will", not a might.

Rephrasing your "inquiry" to highlight how short-sighted this is:

If giving the ukranians nuclear warheads could help them default Russia, then isn't that good? Wouldn't using nuclear warheads to erradicate Russia end the war almost immediately?

Like, why are we even bothering with automated killing robots? That's stupid. We already have nukes, and they're the ultimate weapon, so just do that.

Do you not see how this greedy line of logic could easily lead to the destruction of not just the US, but the entire human race?

This is LITERALLY the plot line of Terminator. Literally. "Hey guys let's build skynet, isn't that a good idea??"

Like... do you not hear yourself? What is not clicking here?

Yes, in the same way a rape victim is "free" to not be raped if they instead opt to get shot by the rapist holding a gun to their head.

Does nobody understand simple words like "free" or "voluntary" anymore? Is coersion no longer a concept that the human brain is able to understand? Or, are some people collectively choosing to act so unbelievably stupid they're falling below the intelligence of an average second grader?

Its not voluntary if its coerced and done under threat.

I don't understand this phenomena of people acting like the stupidest human beings who ever lived. This is not your first day on Earth - you understand how coersion works and what voluntary means.

This administration would never lie, no siree! And especially not on Twitter!

I'm torn here. Who should we believe? The normal people or the people who operate exclusively in dishonesty?

I would still say that counts as the app providing the content, not users. It's not user uploaded, it's app uploaded.

If you exist within a society you must play by the societies rules, to an extent. There's no free pass from consumption, everybody must consume.

Even the act of not consuming can become consumption. Minimalism, the almost anithesis of consumption, itself became a new avenue of consumption.

You can, of course, genuinely live modestly with minimal consumption. Keyword minimal. You just always consume to an extent.

Right, but the recommendation algorithm is very contained. The YouTube recommendation algorithm doesn't write code to modify YouTube to up whatever metrics it has.

I believe London is one of the only parts of the UK that generates more tax revenue than it uses.

In general, denser cities are more efficient in very measure. It makes sense, you have the same amount of stuff with less space and less materials.

Basically everywhere the way it works is that the non-cities are on perpetual welfare from the cities because the cities have all the economy, but you still have to run miles of roads and sewage into the non-cities.

You're 100% right and people here cannot handle the truth.

Routinely, the solution to problems is "idk just burn it down lol" and these people say it without an ounce of irony.

If you remove regulations without preventing the reason we built those regulations in the first place, then you'll just get them again.

People do not do things because they're stupid or just for kicks or whatever. No, they have reasons. We have tried alternatives. Turns out they suck major donkey dick and nobody likes them. That's why we don't do them anymore.

We tried the whole no regulation things. That's literally the sole reason we have regulation. Do we not understand basic cause and effect?

I think it makes sense to give some of the cost to businesses because they also create some of the cost. For example, in the US you have to pay unemployment tax based off of your business' turnover. If you hire and fire a lot of people, you cause more unemployment, so you have to pay more taxes to cover your societal cost. It makes sense.

The key point is that it's just a tax. The government should still be the one doing unemployment, although they're not, but that would be the ideal.

So maybe if you have, say, a dangerous business you pay more healthcare tax or something. That could work instead of letting companies provide health insurance.

They might not be lying, they could also be stupid. It's the same way in the US. There's a mass delusion among people that firing workers is hard.

Um... no it isn't. Most states are right to work. No, you don't need to give severance. No, you don't need to announce it. And yes, that's all perfectly legal.

Is there a theoretical risk that an employee can try to sue you and burn a bunch of your money? Yes, but that risk always exists. Someone could try to sue you always, doesn't mean they'll win.

In actuality the risk is so incredibly small it's not worth thinking about.

This isn't really true, most people do want pleasant and welcoming interactions. That doesn't mean jumping through hoops, just little things like saying hi and smiling.

The opposite - silence and stares - is uncanny, and has gotten much more common in the past 10 years. Everyone notices, and it brings down the vibe.

That doesn't mean forcing your workers to do X Y Z. What it means, IMO, is hiring workers who are pleasant. That would require a pay raise though, because you can't be picky at 10 bucks an hour.

My understanding is that Teflon is perfectly safe. The concern comes from by-products of Teflon manufacturing which leech into water. The Teflon molocules are really long, they can't get stuck anywhere and your body just removes them through your urine.

The defaults have been polished more times than I can count and virtually every KDE release changes some defaults to be more user friendly. It's been getting better for a long time.

All of googles products are unique in some way and have genuine moats. The search engine was the best. The ecosystem was there and pretty good. Docs had online collaboration. And on and on.

Part of the reason programs use so much memory is because of optimization, but of a different kind. Memory is fast-ish, so if you know or think that you will require X Y Z anyway then just load it in RAM. And, if you think you might need it later, don't bother unloading it. Just keep it around.

Garbage collectors also use similar strategies. Collecting garbage is expensive, so just don't until you need to. The extra memory usage in this case isn't a downside, it's an upside. Your code runs faster.

That's how Java and dotnet are able to achieve insane performance times in some benchmarks, like within 50% of native. They're not collecting garbage, and their allocators are actually faster than malloc.

If you've ever run a Java program at consistent 90% heap usage, you'll notice it absolutely grinds to a halt. I'm talking orders of magnitude slower. Naturally, this isnt highlighted in benchmarks, but it illustrates the power of allocating more memory.

It's trivial in the sense that it's easier than not doing nothing, because rather than create problems what we've actually done is systematically installed impediments to solutions. We only need to remove impediments, and the solution finds itself.

Obviously that's very simplified, but the point is we've built this Tower of Babylon that exists around property value that is completely optional and just makes everything harder.

You don't need evidence for things that are obviously true and already proven by simple probability and reasoning. If I really wanted to be an asshole, I could just prove there's malware on the play store by asking you to prove that there are no apps which do not contain malware, which of course nobody can do.

It's a big repository, it's a lot of code, and Google has read approximately 0% of it. Fucking obviously there's malware, it's not rocket science.

My biggest mistake is humoring people who either play stupid or are so stupid that they can barely function. Why do I do this? Is this a form of masochism? Is there a medicine for this? And, if so, is it in-network?

If you're wondering, I didn't read the link at all. The fact that malware exists on the play store is undisputed and I think everyone, except you, agrees with me. So I don't feel it requires much, if any, research on my part.

I never said it was a sole check, I said it was a check. The reality is that app is not thoroughly tested and, even if it was, this would not catch all malware because, again, it's trivial to write malware that can pass a review period and flip on later.

First Google search https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2025/08/77-malicious-...

Here's 77 found by researchers and then removed. Relying on researchers to find malware isn't a very good bet.

If I were a betting man, I would say there are thousands of apps on the play store that you can classify as malware.

We will never know the true number because one of the primary goals of malware is to be as difficult to detect as possible. They're not going to declare they're malware, duh.

If you know of some algorithm to detect malware, I'd love to hear it. Evidently even trillion dollar companies cannot come up with one. To this day, the best way to detect malware is source code analysis and thorough behavior testing.

Google and Apple do neither. Those are just the facts. Do with that what you will, I don't care.

Well they do both, and as I said I imagine most phishing is traditional, through the phone or email. Casting a wide net is just good business, but simply eradicating malware won't make phishing no longer possible.

And I'm being extremely generous here, because this won't erradicate malware. It will make a specific subset of malware harder to distribute. I imagine most malware is distributed through the play store, and naturally that will be unaffected.

But all the activities pursue the threat of violence, although almost all of it never materializes. It's logistics to build things so you might do violence.

> Wow, that a major claim. What apps are malware, exactly?

I don't understand how this is a major claim at all, it should be obvious. All repositories of large enough sizes contain malware because malware doesn't declare itself as malware.

This is exacerbated by the fact the Google Play Store and Apple App Store allow closed-source applications. It's much easier to validate behavior on things like the Debian repos, where maintainers can, and do, audit the source code.

Google does not have a magic "is this malware" algorithm, that doesn't exist. They rely on heuristics and things like asking the authors "hey is this malware". As you can imagine, this isn't very effective. They don't even install and test the apps fully. Not that it matters much, obviously malware can easily change it's behavior to not be detectable from the end-user just running the app.

> Requiring signed apps solves the issue though, as it provides identification of whoever is running the scam and a method for remuneration or prosecution.

It doesn't, for three reasons:

1. Identifying an app doesn't magically make it not malware. I can tell you "hey I made this app" and you still have zero idea if it's malware. This is still a post mitigation. Meaning, if we somehow know an app is malware, we can find out who wrote it. It doesn't do the "is this malware" part of the mitigation, which is the most important part.

2. Bad actors typically have little allegiance to ethics, meaning they typically will not be honest about their identity. There are criminal organizations which operate in meatspace and fake their identities, which is 1000x harder than doing it online. Most malware will not have a legitimate identity tacked to it.

3. Bad actors typically come from countries which don't prosecute them as hard. So, even if you find out if something is malware, and then find out the actual people behind it, you typically can't prosecute them. Even large online services like the Silk Road lasted for a long time, and most likely still do exist, even despite the literal US federal government trying to stop them.

If Ford was around today, I imagine he would get a lot of shit for that. So, I'm not sure what your point is.

The big picture is that musk is obviously both mentally unstable and overall a piece of shit person. You might say that doesn't matter. I think most people think it does.

When those types of people get to make big decisions, they usually make bad or shortsighted ones.

In US politics, we have two big problems: people get to make decisions far too big for them simply because of their wealth, and those people are often the absolute bottom of the barrel of humanity who shouldn't be trusted to tie their own shoes, let alone pivot our country in any direction.

Unfortunately I am forced to make assumptions when people choose not to tell me their intentions. I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt - I couldve assumed the reason was much worse, which is frankly probably the case since you refuse to say it.

If you don't want to be on the defensive, try to make your position comprehensible.