dathinab

it probably is AI written

but it's a bit strange

It's too "clunky" for AI, like you stumble too much over the words when reading

If we take the first sentence that could have been from a German person, where such language structures aren't that uncommon.

I myself write a lot like that, and always have written like that, often in way worse ways, like sentences which never, not even after docent of words, end, and have levels of sub-sentence nesting no normal thinking human would want to read. (<- yes that was intentional. I tend to write more concise today.)

Through there are indicators of AI usage in pretty much every single sentence.

But at the same time the writing is too bad, for most current AI agents.

Like reading it is hard, in ways AI tends to not mess up. There are missing filler and glue words. Including some cases where I think they are probably grammatically require (through school was too long ago, so idk.). Sometimes it looks like a different language construct was used (like bracket or -- hyphen inlays) which then where search+replaced with commas.

So I really wonder what that is?

- a lower quality LLM Model?

- AI written text modified by hand leading to it having the worst of both worlds?

- or a human who has self learned English as a second language using AI and believes this is how normal English speakers write ...

and the last option is kinda frightening, because sooner or later we will have exactly that: People who write like AI "but worse" and likely do not even realize what they are doing.

---

EDIT/PS: Side note; Rust in Python is a decent match. PyO3 is far from perfect but decently usable. Spreading more awareness about it is nice. This comment is only about the writing structure not the content of the blog post.

yep one of the first rules of any market should be

you sell a product -> you are responsible about the product

with a ".. -> you must be honest about the product (/what the products does, provides, etc.)"

to see how absurdly not followed this common sense(^1) is in the us look at supplements

1. provider are not hold responsible, non small parts of sold supplements are harmful in one way or another. Even cases like supplements advertised for pregnant woman with highly dangerous components for pregnant woman existed, no major change followed.

2. high amounts (AFIK 80% or so) of supplements sold in the US are severely dishonest and don't quite contain what is advertised. And this isn't just about it technically containing the supplements, but in a form the body can't absurd. But it goes so bad that "it's just sugar pills" is more on the harmless side... (and even that is dangerous given that many people take supplements for fixing health issues caused by to little of what the supplement).

not only has the US not fixed it when it started going out of hand, they went explicitly out of their way to not fix it.

(^1): (Common sense for anyone looking a bit into market dynamics/consumer protection etc.)

my point is most _rented apartments_ are not setup like that and do not provide a reasonable path to have it

most owned apartments also are not build in a way where it's easy to retrofit. So if you don't do a "in depth" renovation anyway, its often just not a good option from a financial POV. Especially if you have to reroute plumbing (for the floor level wet room sink), especially if beton floor or pre-existing floor heating is involved.

it is, just not in the US

in Japan you tend to shower & wash yourself clean _before_ getting into any bath. In the west people don't do it or do it very half asset. And tbh. a lot of places have combined bath/shower so you kinda can't even do it Japanese style nicely.

That alone probably will make a huge difference in how often you have to deep clean it.

works for me, with uBlock Origin enabled, one captcha solve was enough

but .... my user agent is way more finger printable then it should (e.g. has the Linux x86_64 part) so that might make the difference.

people do learn from history, even through too little

from an external POV it looks a lot like:

- the US law making process is fundamental and deeply broken to a point of it feels comparable to the Weimar Republic (the Germany between WW1 and Hitler taking over, around it's end it was pretty much dysfunctional when it comes to passing laws)

- instead things which should be law changes, and should be pursued bipartisan, are squeezed into other things. Like the budged bill, wider interpretations(1) of the existing law etc.

- or bundled into absurdly large bills covering docents of things which should not be one bill (which is very un-democratic and likely harmful for the US citizens. It allows corrupt politicians to forces less corrupt ones to vote for bad laws, because they are bundled with very essential needed changes, it also has shown to pose a very realistic risk of "sneaking" in something bad etc.)

- other cases often get stuck or even for topics which should be bipartisan held hostage to push some other goals

- with the current president this seems to have gotten even worse as he and the people close to him have attacked changes otherwise pursued by a wider bipartisan support. So even iff you can onboard both sides it might not mean enough in this legislation. But while I'm pretty sure I have seen such cases I can't remember details, so take with a grain of salt.

- to add in on top of all of that: Consumer and environmental protection in the US has always been a bit weak, a bit too slow, and often lacking precautionary approaches (most thing being reactive to enough people suffering harm, even if it was clear for a long time that idk. a product isn't safe or similar). And in some aspects this has been further crippled by the current administration, but idk. if such aspects apply here. That means even iff the current state is caused by a crime, it likely will take years to make stop the criminal from committing it. If it's seen as a breach of constitution things likely would move faster, and corrupt local governments have a much harder time undermining it.

---

(^1): Which isn't always bad, some degree of "vagueness" to handle the complexity of constant changing IRL is often desirable (as a dump example you also would make a law to forbid killing, instead of a law which explicitly lists and forbids every imaginable way you might kill someone). But what I mean goes far beyond that. In general some recognition of "basic human right" on a constitutional level should be something any citizen should ask their country to have. And I mean that independent of the international human rights court and the specific interpretation of human rights common with it. Not recognizing it is one thing, but insistently not recognizing any form of human rights is another, IMHO pretty evil, thing.

first they are mostly collecting statistics about ethnicity, not race

genetically there is only one human race (which is often best explained as the genetic differences _inside_ a sample group of arbitrary ethnicities being larger then the difference between (a hypothetical average genome) of such groups).

through to be fair, people use race and ethnicity commonly interchangeable

what is more relevant is why should a country even collect either such information?!

the only thing which seems potentially relevant is statistics about stuff like _practiced_ (sub-)culture, religion etc. But nothing really fixed by birth. (The reasons you might want to have that information is because it can affect which of multiple imperfect possible decisions, is the one wich is most likely causing the least amount of unintended issues for peoples daily live.)

And I know "people" also conflate practiced culture and race and ethnicity in daily conversations. But they also tend to tell white looking people with dreadlocks that they are acting very inappropriately, even if that person has a African parent (as a very dump example of the kind of situations which make me fell the need to write this comment. Also not me in the example. Just a fully arbitrary chosen, simple to understand example).

> running into Russia.

except they also seem to speed running crashing the world economy, making it feels more like "speed running Russian government structures while speed running a soviet union future"...

which isn't really "that" surprising, if you consider that, while most people will suffer from a sever world economy crash, the ~top 1% or so will long term profit. Mainly because even iff they lose a huge lot they still have enough left to buy up theoretically well working businesses crashed by the large scale economy crash. Sure that would be very evil, but you only need a few of the richest pushing for it while the rest "just" doesn't push against it for this to happen. Or a few of the richest having even way more money then the rest. And given that both (huge differences in wealth of the wealthiest & lack of morals) seem the case it's hard to believe that the current direction is fully accidental.

Which brings use back to the topic of how any proper free market must not allow any to large concentration of money as it will break the market sooner or later. Or how democracies must not allow too much concentration of political power (or it break sooner or later very reliably historically speaking). Or how the one thing a society preaching tolerance can't tolerate is strong cases of intolerance. All the same kind of "naively it looks like a contradiction" cases where if you look into them it kinda start looking obvious that tolerating that is a bad idea.

Problem is while preventing aggregation of power, wealth, etc. is very viable if properly perused by politics, it's to late for prevention.

But also there isn't really a good fix once a country (or more like most of the world) failed to prevent it.

Trying to forcefully size assets is a severely unpleasant idea. More importantly but it's a thing things which tend to end very very badly.

And the ethical issues with that are pretty obvious, too.

Through also this isn't about millionaires, or the top 10%,1%,0.1%, but about wealth "beyond reason". Not sure where that starts but probably lowest in the the 50-100 millions and definitely in the billions (or trillions). I.e. the point where your wealth gives you trivially more political influence then the votes of the majority of people... I mean in the end about protecting democracy and a (proper) free market. It isn't about communism, no matter how much certain propaganda channels will claim that supposedly wanting a working democracy and free market is communism (or socialism). Through iff, and only if, you put the vague limit of when something start being "unreasonable rich" at a much lower point, e.g. inflation corrected 2 million, then _that_ is making it about communism like stuff. So it's a slippery slope. (Sadly too many people seem to have lost the ability (or will?) to have well differentiated discussions or opinions, always falling into extremes, so discussing such things seems often pointless)

it's not that simple

to promise 5 year of security updates your SoC needs to also have that support for that time frame + part of your developmeant/production time (as you can't the last steps of development/production before that chip is released). Lastly you need to add the duration during which you promise the 5 years security updates.

to put it simple for a 5 year guarantee you need ~8 better 10 year support for the SoC, measured from is release date

a lot of phone SoC (which tend to get Android porting priority by their producer) have shorter support. Hence why the fp5 had a SoC from a product line designed for industrial embedded appliances instead of a phone SoC...

but the main reason is likely simpler:

They are relatively small and likely will updated FP5, 6,6+ to Android 16 roughly at the same time to not have to support multiple major Android versions for the same time.

Still as long as Android 15 still gets security this doesn't matter too much. Recent major Android version IMHO often have been more disruptive then helpful. At least for me, but my guess it's this applies widely for the kind of audience which pay more because they plan to actual have the same smartphone in use for more the 3 years ;)

one problem is that algorithms(1) to detect AI generated content are surprisingly bad

like non-AI generated animated/cartoon content is much more likely to be mistakenly labeled as AI then some somewhat realistic "looking" but for a human still clearly AI slop content

some platforms (TickTock) seem to label anything as fully AI generated iff the metadata indicates certain tools like Adobe Illustrator are used, independent on how it was been used

---

(1): If that tool is "ask an AI" then its not surprising at all. It's content which AI tried to make look as realistic as possible, the same (and potentially similar) AI will see it as "as realistic as possible"...

anti monopoly actions != weak economy

Actually the opposite monopolist (and oligopoles etc.) tend to sooner or later stop innovating (they don't need to, they win by default) and decay into customer abusive absurdity. And to some degree we are already seeing this with alphabet.

What such concentration of money also means, is a concentration of power under the hand of a few people, wich then can use that power to e.g. undermine or outright destroy democracy, force countries to make really bad decisions (including economic ones), destroy industries "on a whim" etc. Worst huge economic crisis tend to long term make the richest of the rich even more wealthy and more important tends to open doors for even more power/abuse, exceptions in laws, state subsidization etc. So you can't even rely on them not intentionally fucking up their countries economy because "that would be bad". Not for them, at least not long term. And tbh. at the net worth we are speaking about "it being bad" still means they can live in luxury for the not just the rest of their lives and have multiple millions left to inherit to their children.

> know (academic) international relations Realism.

or you not knowing less about economics then you think

> to counter China and keep Europe safe.

eh, the financial support of right US milliadaries of right radical political groups which want to both dismantle the EU (and overthrow democracy) in combination with US mono/-oligopols in combination with corruption & US political pressure, is effectively killing most efforts for local EU competition. Honestly this is likely doing far more harm in how much EU is "able to resist" China then any "safekeeping" the US does (mostly indirectly by protecting their own interests).

it might be worth considering that for many Phones different hardware is sold _under the same marketing name_.

The most common versions (in the "west) are AFIK:

- US version vs. international version

(just the most common divide of Phones you will see "in the west", e.g. if a brand sell to China, that also is normally it's own sub-versions.)

the most common differences include:

- different modems

- US phones being carrier locked (which is not normal outside of the US and a few other countries)

- US phones not having sim card slots, the international version of the same (Android) Phones, often still has a physical sim card slot

> A.I. data-centers

I wouldn't be so sure about that (in the US).

Like usage in A.I. data-centers assumes

that they get price competitive with low quality gas turbines run by state subventioniere natural gas...

or the government actual enforces proper environmental protections so that they can't continue running gas turbines without proper filters (and this isn't even (mostly) about climate change, but air pollution harming people)

and from how it currently looks both things seem unlikely :/

> no contactless payments.

I think this is the problem here.

A lot of NFC related tech is deeply rooted in having "trusted (aka large company)", "attested (aka you can't easily lie)", secure module functionality.

What should have happened is to just not enable the contactless payment functionality for given app, even if the user enabled it in general. And not crash.

Also as others have pointed out, this might be an accidental mishap not an intended outcome.

But it's not like PayPal is known to care about small user-base edge cases (quite the opposite). Which I guess is the actual root problem.

this isn't quite true

From a Paypal security POV, weather you use "custom Android OS" or an hugely outdated Android phone, you have:

- a similar risk for the "you" want to mess with Paypal case, in both cases the "you" can technically most likely mess with anything including the "virtual secure module" thingy android uses for NFC

- a lower risk for "others" wanting to mess with Paypal through your phone, at least if "custom Android OS" is GrapheneOS or another up-to-date android fork with decent security handling

so as far as I can tell, this inconsistency is very clearly not about PayPal's security.

IMHO it's about two other things:

1. marketing, if PayPal doesn't work on Android they lose customers, GrapheneOS for now has a tool small customer base for them to care. Outdated Android phone do have a large customer base.

2. compliance/politics BS. including potentially involving insurance. Compliance is mostly about checking of tickmarks(1) on outdated Android they can check them off and blame the user, Goodle or "hackers" for the issue. On GraphemeOS they have a harder time checking it of. Add the smaller user base and end up with PayPal doesn't care. Also iff things go wrong with Paypal on GraphemeOS in a public manner you will have all the "crime os" bad news bs, you won't have that if things go wrong with a even more risky highly outdated Android phone.

-----------------------

I got a bit to much off topic below:

(^1): Technically compliance should be about building robust, secure, law compliant systems and "showing" that by being able to pass a compliance tests consisting about a bunch of requirements. Practically there is way to many ways you can be "fully compliant" (on paper) but not secure and "very secure" but not compliant (wrt. security regulations). In the former case this might still come back and bite you iff you get sued or people suing which should get right don't get it because of ad-absurbum reasoning like "they comply with security regulations, hence can't have acted negligent". It's a shit show I don't know how to fix even if I could just magically change laws as compliance rules need technological flexibility, but if you give them that that will be abused to make insecure things pass. And the whole industry around checking that isn't really one who cares about actual security, sometimes outright corrupt (like groups which have the necessary accredited to check your compliance, are strangely more expensive then other groups, and somehow find less issues in average, with some excuse of why that isn't strange ...) :/

---

Lastly similar to how Teams or Slack could easily support FF (^2) but not only don't but outright refuse to try to even work. PayPal likes to act similar and doesn't care about niches. E.g. at least on some Mobile browsers WebAuthn works, but the PayPal website refuses to _even try_ 2FA with WebAuthn on mobile no matter if the APIs are there or not.

(^2): Yes there are some challenges, AFIK especially in certain edge cases most user might never run into. But Jitsi made it work, other smaller apps also made it work. And Jitsi is open source, so they technically can "look up" all the tricks to make it work (algorithmic ticks, not copy-pasting code) or outright just use their system with an appropriate contract (probably would be even cheaper wrt. maintenance cost then building your own system). At Slack/MS Teams scale that behavior is just messed up.

@ngcazz can't realy directly due to nesting limit but:

I don't think most people have read the blog.

I don't think you can assume people have read anything outside the specific page linked by HN.

isn't it a typical SV investor money hype train situation:

- project overpromise to a point of absurdity (e.g. Tesla (still has questionable full self driving), SpaceX (in recent times there had been absurd differences between claimed rocket load and what we then find out the rocket actually could load, like 100 Tons being only 15 Tons IRL level of differences), etc. etc.)

- project jumps on some hype train (e.g. AI)

- project has some eccentric owner which is good at selling it, even if it doesn't do what is sold

- owner also goes with the "move fast break things"

- owner acts widely (likely actually criminally) negligent in "safety" topics, shipping something is more important then the damage the negligence will causes, in some such such cases even if it's close to guaranteed that the negligence will kill people. Another way to phrase this point is they follow the "move at ANY cost so fast that competition can't keep up until you win by default" motto.

- owner has some "Vitamine B" connections to rich risk friendly investors (aka. the "friends help friends", "cartel-like", "kinda looks like corruption" structures we have been seen from time to time in the background of SV-related startup investments)

So I don't think you are missing anything about Omarchy, it's more like the whole investor culture around SV is severely broken, unhealthy and in their recklessness IMHO more damaging to society then its helpful. Not speaking about how this background structures twist the founding/startup marked in a way which may look to the outside to be "fair and open" but in fact isn't, if you don't "bow" to the right people and their ideology you aren't getting anywhere.

you are missing the point

just because something isn't perfect and handles everything you can come up with doesn't mean it isn't still very very useful

nothing in nature is truly perfect and down-talking grate but not perfect things will just make us stuck in a pretty shitty world which never improves because no improvement by itself "perfectly/fully" solves whatever problem set you are looking at

and browsers might do so too

like something on the line of "if (image small || partially covered || mostly transparent) then don't use HDR"

> but we’ve gotten far enough

this is a partial misconception, at least in the US

the difference between then and now isn't that the patent law was majorly improved or that patent offices better apply the theoretic bars for quality, intuitiveness, etc. (actually many countries still measure their patent offices by nr. patents granted, setting very bad insensitives.)

the actual difference is a small number of concerns own such a shitload of "unreasonable" patents that they could more or less nuke the whole economy and decided its best for them to put them into a pool and not touch them

this is pretty much a ticking time bomb

it doesn't matter!!!

it's a parenting tool, not an online banking system

EDIT: Also the most relevant devices are not laptops, but phones, tablets, gaming consoles. Some of them have such a system already working "good enough" for the use cases of "games"/"game stores" and similar. Yes not browser. But very much extensible to that.

> age verification system effectively becomes an identity verification system.

this is fundamentally wrong and accepting this as an industry will only lead to required identity verification becoming the norm sooner or later

the important realization is age verification is in the end "just" a form of parenting tool

this means

- it doesn't need to be a "perfect", glancing at the age of a passport when buying adult products isn't perfect either, but it's good enough. And it doesn't require seeing the address, name, (in most cases) day and month, gender etc. on a id, nor any form of "noting them down".

- it doesn't need to be attestation based, unhackable or anything like that. It complements parenting, not replaces it.

- in turn it also shouldn't need anyones id, in most places children below 18 don't need any id but 16+ is still a age barrier

or to lay it out in rough design

- require multimedia devices sold to have a child "mode" functionality

- allow setting a age category or age (to auto determine and update the category), require a age set for this purpose to be kept private on the device and not shared, analyzed etc.

- require web sites and apps to have voluntary min age limits, similar to other products, block access _client side_ based on this information. The standard should allow region/country specific limits and reason tags.

- There are a bunch of edge cases omitted, like sites serving dynamic content/platforms in general. Requirements for parents to be allowed to define exceptions (in both directions) and handling of sides not having your countries age gating. Etc.

- properly educate parent about it

this provides sufficient functionality to support parents in parenting without requiring any identity verification or overriding the parents right to parent

yes, it's not perfect in many ways. But it doesn't need to perfect, it's "just fine" for what it tries to archive.

add the "lying, deceiving and manipulating" AI agents are forced though the throat of people which don't want it and peoples are non stop deceived in "sharing" their data for training

like twitch recently giving themself the right to train on all streams, with an opt-out (at least in the EU), but only an opt-out

like seriously since when is it reasonable to allow "opt-out" for AI training which main purpose is _literally_ to replace you, this is sooo far beyond fair use and in "platform power abuse" territory that it's absurd (naturally same for so many other case, just twitch is a "this week" case)

> America is at-will employment and employers can basically make up whatever rules they want.

this is a bit misleading

at-will deployment and "can basically make up whatever rules" aren't necessary required to go hand in hand, you can have at-will deployment and still proper enforce labor laws by giving appropriate penalties and protection to employees in case of violations which make it non profitable use the "break law if complain fire" route.

But seriously it's more then just bad.

Adding hidden cost to "working" is a hidden pay cut not showing up in payment statistic, that alone should make it illegal.

And it is in combination with "cost traps" a common recipe of modern slavery. While this case isn't modern slavery just a economic collapse (e.g. huge economic collapse where no one can afford to lose the job they have, AI stays expensive but inflation makes salaries go away) to ending up very close to it...

Sure there are reasonable edge cases, like causal personal clothes if there is no dress code or similar. As well as some limited expected private payments for high paying jobs (which you often still can write off from taxes, but(!) for this you need to have to pay enough taxes or it won't work and you have to have enough tax write-off potential left for all the common write-offs etc. Hence why this is only true for high paying jobs or very very small mostly one-off expenses.).

> coding agents count as “hand tools”

they are tools you use (in general) "by hand", to mostly do the non engineering/non creative parts of the job. So even if they don't count as it now, they might very well end up counting as something similar. Just because something is digital doesn't mean you can (or at least should be able to) circumvent regulations. That he EU had to pass a "digital products are products, laws for products apply to them" because lobbyist managed to make digital products non products for many laws is already quite absurd. Similar digital "tools" should count as much as "tools" as physical tools...

_if_ stated in the contract exactly what is needed with any possible constraints on brands etc., this didn't seem to have been in the contract at all

or else you wouldn't be able to know what you will (excluding overtime etc.) earn, which would be absurd to be legal (but might be, US isn't exactly known for grate labor laws)

no it's people presenting "this is good for a handful of companies" as if it is the "desirable outcome for the general population" even if the final consequences seem rather bad for the general population and might even threaten democracy

I don't think this is legal??

It's like telling someone they have to drive none stop for their job but neither giving them a company car or nor a budget for it.

(To be clear done and companies get away with it != legal. I know companies sometimes get away with exactly the example I named in some cases.)

I mostly read it AI Labs == established AI Labs i.e. under control of a few rich people. Else it wouldn't be called AI Labs but, idk. AI Comission (like FCC) or similar