digging

I'm super appreciative of what we have, but there's absolutely issues.

CAN-SPAM specifies that the link must be clearly marked and suggests using CSS to do so, but the link is still always going to be at the bottom of the email in the smallest font used. It only matters for those of us who know to look for it; many people just have to live with the spam because they don't know it's easy to unsubscribe.

Sometimes it's not even going to be underlined or distinguished at all (that may be a violation actually but I'm not going to take them to court over it).

There's other dark patterns too, like certain unsubscribe pages requiring you to type/paste your email in to actually complete the process. That is 100% intentional friction, like github making you type the name of a repo into the deletion form. It should also be illegal for unsubscribing.

Honestly, using a username generator in Bitwarden, it's so easy to do this that it basically "pays" for itself the first time you get a "true" spam email and it's effortless to identify who sold you out. I originally tried doing this manually but that was too much effort; now it's as simple and natural as generating a password for a new login. I see no reason to ever stop.

Of course, the vast majority of spam I get is marketing emails from companies I've actually done business with. Few if any even have an opt-in checkbox on their checkout form and those that do hardly ever honor it. There's simply nothing to be done about that except unsubscribe after the first time they spam you - and this is where having unique emails also helps, because those "unsubscribe" links are obviously riddled with tracking as well.

I generate a "username" on Bitwarden for every new address I need which is effectively the same approach (using my domain). Do you mean though that you generate an email address with your mail server, or do you just use a catch-all? I do the latter and I've never considered "turning off" an address before and now I wonder if I have that option.

> I don't know why anyone cares.

Not because of what you're thinking. What's concerning is how easy it is to bypass leading AI companies' best attempts at restricting output. It bodes poorly for future AI if we can't even control the kinds we have when we're trying really hard. (Alternately, that we aren't trying really trying when we should be.)

> Your last sentence would have been a fine reply to the GP without any meta level commenting.

I get that but I stand by all of it though.

> data from the experts monitoring the reef did not line up with the climate change predictions of the reef.

That's normal.

> He didn't say HE knew the truth,

Well, that was a paraphrase of the unwarranted confidence in each of these statements, which I find extremely dubious:

> This fact is already a major problem for the claim that corals are hurt by global warming - if it were true, there should have been declines in this period

It's easy to imagine that warming would not have any effect up until reaching a certain tipping point, so this is overstated as evidence-against.

> This time series is incompatible with the idea of a link between CO2 and coral health.

Basically a restatement of the above. They're not incompatible.

> Whatever caused this set of changes is unlikely to be human driven

"Unlikely" is also an overstatement. These data can cast doubt but aren't strong enough to say that anthropogenic causes are unlikely, given how likely it frankly is due to the scale of changes in the ocean.

> But we can safely say that corals are already heat tolerant.

No, we can't say this. Some corals are heat-tolerant.

> they have existed throughout history in which natural climate change has created vastly greater differences than seen in the last 100 years.

This is... borderline misinformation. It ignores the rate of change, which is just not really a credible way to discuss climate change. Also, specifically, which changes has coral survived? I don't actually know how old coral is or which mass extinctions it has survived which is actually pretty important for making a comparison.

Etc. Not really worth going over every point, you get the idea.

Information is fine, overconfident denialist commentary earns a downvote. When you see a comment to the effect of "The self-proclaimed experts are wrong! I know the truth," you should heavily discount the conclusions it draws.

Just because the mechanism of resurgence is unknown does not mean that all previous science on the topic is invalidated.

It can simultaneously be true that ocean warming is devastating the Great Barrier Reef corals and that the GBR has the ability to rebound on its own. Here's a question the parent comment didn't address: Are we seeing the same species in this resurgence that we saw before mass bleaching, or is biodiversity reduced?

> Seriously. Thanks for confirming OP's point

What was implied in my previous comment is that someone who doesn't know anything about digital privacy and security can't be called lazy for not investing in it. And lots of people know very little about it. "Society is lazy" is in fact a lazy excuse to wash one's hands of a problem and pretend they're better than other people.

> Its hard to maintain because most people have to give something up in order to get the privacy they want. 99% of the users these days don't care about privacy. Privacy is a "boomer" thing.

Its not hard when you have literally generations of technological knowledge at your fingertips and still want something automated to do all of this for you, without any compromises on your own part - which inevitably leads to:

Sorry... I have literally no idea what the point you're making here is. Is it hard or easy? Do people want meaningful privacy or do they not?

Terrible take. Our modern world is hopelessly complicated and we don't ask every citizen to personally defend their physical security from outside threats, nor personally manage their water and food security.

How do you even square these adjacent statements?

> even decent OpSec is hard.

> We've become such a lazy society

The plain and obvious response to our situation is that digital privacy and security should be opt-out, not opt-in. It's not as simple as adding a button that does nothing, but it actually is relatively simple for browser vendors et al to reverse their assumptions.

If you don't agree, are you knocking on doors and teaching your neighbors how to manage their security? I hope you've got a lot of patience.

Look, the word "better" has no meaning here. This thread is pointless unless those involved are discussing specifics and acknowledging personal preferences.

Anyway, Bloodborne is a PS4 exclusive masterpiece and it would be absurd to suggest that it doesn't approach the level of quality of games in the 90s.

I feel this new version could help with that if unapproved users are restricted in the types of issues they're allowed to create. Something like "external". Or vice versa, they can't create "Internal" issues. But I immediately see a problem which is that types are not tags so the dichotomy of internal/external means that types now can't be used for type-of-work, only channel-of-input. So you'd be back to using tags for the former...

You wouldn't get spammed.

Is this abuse? Were people taking these boxes as soon as they were delivered, or were people taking home boxes of leftovers? I don't think I've ever been to an event of any sort which had ordered pizzas and saw someone just take a box before anyone could get to it. But most events I've been to which had pizzas had intentionally ordered extra boxes, and it's always encouraged for someone to take home extras in those cases.

> pursuing the right choice

I don't agree with this framing. A person's opinion of what a "good" or "right" outcome is is one of the inputs to the algorithm.

When you decide to put in less effort it's affecting the algorithm because the weight of the high-effort outcome is reduced.

Chatbot is the form factor; LLMs are what is being called AI. SmarterChild wasn't an LLM.

They very clearly did break something because a lot of people got upset and said they broke something, and then they admitted they broke something.

Then you should define what it means to you. I've given enough in my other reply.

#2 is obviously false - and #1 is obviously true, to me. Whether or not you wrote this comment was a decision you made. The only way "free will" is even an open question is if you can't decide what "you" are.

If you only allow yourself to identify with the highest-level, most rational aspects of the decision engine you live inside, then that's a mistake which will haunt you with questions like "am I really in control?" forever. If you identify with a broader sense of your self, it's pretty obvious that you are making decisions, for both rational and irrational reasons. Your conscious experience is part of what it feels like for a human to make decisions.

> thus it's presence must mean life if there

Nobody said that. It's on you for making the leap, whether out of hope or misguided combativeness, to the assertion that it must mean life, which I don't recall ever being stated by any of the researchers involved or any reputable articles.

Once again, you've converted "this supports [alternate theory]" into "it must be [alternate theory]." At least address the argument being made instead of a strawman.

From my perspective,

> This hype around AI is gaudy. Nearly every implementation feels cheap, half-baked, and obnoxious.

is true but does not imply:

> AI is completely useless in almost every way I see it implemented

which is not true. It's just harder to get real value out of it than junk. And it's a completely new "skill" to get value out of LLMs which most of us aren't learning.

A huge number of people are 60lbs or more overweight and are still very agile, too. It's silly to keep picking this fight this way.

> How is that not going to make you less agile (no matter how well made)?

Because the weight is distributed and carefully balanced and the parts are fitted to the wearer's body. It does in fact matter how it's made, it's not a backpack.

I admit I could have put more effort into my response, but at this point you're not going to spend 30 seconds to even look it up?

Here is a video of people doing cartwheels in full plate armor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTwBQniLSc

The difference in agility seems marginal if it exists at all. I would certainly advise anyone, if they ever had to bet their life on it, to assume a fully armored foe is not inhibited in their agility. Maybe crawl into a very tight space if you must.

Fun calculator. A little noisy to make its points, but "You could die right now and Shell could continue operating for 6 seconds longer with the carbon you saved" is a powerful statement.

I wasted so much energy in my most vigorous years trying to make decisions that literally don't matter at all and felt so important. I could have been building skills to influence policy instead, but the sustainability movement was bamboozled pretty hard.

> But a knight in full plate with a longsword is certainly much less agile than someone with a rapier and no armour.

No, that's not really true either.

On reflection I think you've convinced me, and I find it curious that I initially dismissed the parallels with other vices.

I think I felt disconnected from, and maybe above, gambling, so I had less sympathy for it happening in illegal ways. I think it was wrong to have less sympathy due to that, but I also think I was wrong to feel disconnected from gambling. I played MTG for years, which is in many ways just legal gambling, and I had to quit it completely to feel comfortable.

I don't know if I would have played if it were illegal, but I can understand what it would be like to do so.

Good point, although I wasn't the first to complain on this submission so I don't think I contributed to your count.

You are arguing that reversing the very recent legalization of sports gambling would be a net harm to society and that there would be greater suffering than there is today because of that ban.

Are you making that argument by accident, because you felt compelled to nitpick some word choices, or do you seriously believe that?

Sure, there are many other forms of advertising that are irresponsible in the public sphere.

> It seems like the question is always about the degree to which the governments ought to intervene to protect us from each other...and ourselves.

Of course. That's why I defined the degree I was advocating for

But this title is clickbait. It's a lie. It could have been "How real spies were nothing like movie spies."

I'm quite peeved because this article contained almost no new information for me. This is the basic stuff you learn about spies if you have literally any interest in historical spying, plus some trivia about how to make invisible ink. I regret my click.