opello

What about ER? I thought that Tommy Schlamme was a big part of the creation of the walk and talk?

Trying these URLs again now and it seems to be redirecting to the right place for all 3 I had tested.

Wow, yeah, same two redirects for that PDF link. Geez. It'd sure be interesting to know the full cause here, otherwise it really destroys a lot of trust in the tool.

Edit: It sure does seem to be a PDF problem, these were both NYT things, but I tried a CCC talk page that had a slides link and sure enough, same behavior.

    https://archive.ph/o/n5qxb/https://fahrplan.events.ccc.de/congress/2015/Fahrplan/system/event_attachments/attachments/000/002/825/original/32c3-slides.pdf

The only thing I'd add is that I see redirects to at least two domains:

    https://stolidityseashellshotter.com/ezrsb5dd1268e6f6ebaad42916d5d87b8133c0816d3e7
    https://gullible-thanks.com/w5FDGi

Interesting. Same behavior here with a generic User-Agent and no Cookie header at all.

Response headers mention an onion-location and link to stolidityseashellshotter... but also mementoweb... pretty strange. Most generously, maybe some kind of cache poison instead of explicit bad behavior?

I reproduced it too but was hoping to get a log, now all I get is 429 as well.

Just for the sake of preserving what I did see, the URL linked in the text was:

    https://archive.ph/o/jXv3A/https://schenklawfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/wan-v-openai-complaint.pdf

and that now seems to have been purged from the archive.today cache, as this page says "No results":

https://archive.ph/https://schenklawfirm.com/wp-content/uplo...

I think I skipped past this part of the article:

> While blocking the piracy of work to train AI

when I read the quote:

> “Like any reader aspiring to be a writer, Anthropic’s LLMs trained upon works not to race ahead and replicate or supplant them — but to turn a hard corner and create something different,”

That's my mistake.

I went back and read the actual opinion, and while I'm disappointed that training an LLM is fair-use transformative, I'm hopeful about a trial on the subject of the pirated copies. But I'm also worried that the argument seems like it might succeed if such training is "one-shot" without the central library or repository of intermediate copies. And that doesn't seem like a good outcome. But maybe my pessimism here is also misplaced.

Which seems to open the door to arguments like: I'm not consuming pirated media, I'm studying it for my aspiring content creation pivot!

The Anthropic announcement was discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49820134

For various embedded environments that use busybox it's busybox's brand of ash. I generally enjoy the opportunity to learn when bumping up against these kind of edge cases.

That equivalency only holds if there is a visual distinction in the output between the l and the 1. There often wasn't when this practice was popular.

And the fog horn launch sound that reminded you if your speakers were on or turned up... good times.

I also really enjoyed this show and rewatched it a few years ago on DVD. But I certainly noticed the main title music was different. I don't recall noticing in-episode music though, and wouldn't have remembered it from the show.

I went looking for the PAL DVDs after seeing your comment, and found one season but not a full set. After looking a little online it seems like the PAL release might have been cropped down a bit from the NTSC release? If that's the case it seems pretty disappointing.

Wouldn't this require a man-in-the-middle since the PS5 is transmitting data to a specific server, YouTube or Twitch in the article?

There are extensions to RTMP to use encryption or even just TLS. But do you mean that the risk of fragments of audio and video bitstreams going out unprotected presents a remote code execution risk? That seems less a problem of vulnerability and more one of privacy.

In my (admittedly limited) experience, adding audio tracks to a video track that weren't produced together often requires editing. If not for sample rate reasons, content reasons, like extra space for additional video space at the beginning or ending most basically. It seems like in any instances like that, which I would count as "nominal," it would be appropriate to identify those as "modified from" which would seemingly place you squarely into "hybrid" space within the taxonomy of this comment thread.

Scrubs was another one with pretty obvious music changes, because some were part of the dialogue or a joke that just doesn't make sense after the change.

> Movies and especially TV shows on the other hand are a mess. It shouldn't be a miracle to get a high-quality, faithful official remaster like the one Star Trek: TNG got.

Star Trek: TNG was a bit of a special case though, because it had to be re-cut and new digital special effects created and edited into scenes.

I think this perspective holds more true for things that were broadcast in HD but only got commercial DVD releases. That's a disappointing lapse in high quality availability where HD content was distributed, just not in a persistent form for home use. In those cases the best quality available is an HD TV or satellite recording which might not have been preserved even in online media sharing communities.

I was wondering about that too, it seems like it's partly in this test report:

https://www.dxomark.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/AppleiPho...

and then more context, especially for the less objective categories, in this test protocol description:

https://www.dxomark.com/smartphone-camera-image-quality-test...

It was a little annoying to find (About Us > How We Test) but not awful I suppose.

Convenience as a higher order motivator than disgust at the bad behavior of archive.{today,ph,...} mentioned elsewhere, I think is the point of the comment to which you replied.

I think there's still an ethical question of a business trying to scoop a researcher solely because the business learned of promising progress. It's not a very big leap to consider "multiple discovery" (a la calculus by Leibniz and Newton) and chance that the model that is good at math proofs might have enough ambient context to work faster from a similar knowledge base on the problem for which promising progress was discovered. I think that's not nice at the very least. Surely the above-board way to approach that is "hey researcher, we learned, indirectly, that you might have made significant progress on flashy research topic and would like the chance to throw our vast computational resources in to try to help work toward the conclusion of that effort." But, maybe that's asking too much?

In order for this to be the strong evidence everyone also has to believe that the setting is absolutely true. That some logging from some piece of the system could not also leak the prompt information in such a way that it could have been included as training data. Perhaps the design of how data is collected for the training dataset is so rigorous as to make this a practical impossibility. But, it's asking a lot without sufficient detail to completely exclude from possibility that one setting is all that could possibly have been absolutely load bearing in deciding if the other researcher's active efforts meaningfully contaminated the internal model.

At least, as an ignorant outsider, that's how it seems to me.

No evidence until there's an answer to the question of if prompt data from the other researchers was used to train the internal model.

I think the reasonable ethical question to consider when a company has an incentive to prove its value, and learns of the state of the art of a flashy research topic being close to a solution, and then throws loads of resources at trying to solve it first. I agree that "AI" didn't "take" but it's not an incomprehensible shortcut of criticism of the aforementioned behavior, not that precision should be avoided here.

It seems like a strange juxtaposition to talk about buying vs. renting while getting updates for free.

That's interesting. Some of the fandom wikis are really high quality (memory-alpha, starwars) and were my introduction to the service. I suppose I appreciate that someone paying for the hosting and running the wiki has to be paid for somehow. And this kind of consolidation makes it worse if the underlying provider fails, but ideally avoids that so individually hosted instances don't more silently disappear. It makes me wonder about the most reasonable balance.

I also enjoyed browsing the list of mappings:

https://github.com/IndieWikiBuddy/indie-wiki-buddy/blob/main...

That is a reasonable push back. The simple answer is a lack of present day need given my TV is a very old Samsung without any need.

I suppose I also assume someone with Android ROM development experience is better positioned to take up organizing such a project as an overall smaller effort, there by being faster and more efficient. Other real life constraints also seem to suggest not pursuing this type of thing in lieu of other things I should be pursuing and already procrastinate. But, here there be dragons, or at the very least a can of worms.

This exactly. Surely some sort of IoT mesh networking will allow exfiltration of data even without having configured your own device.

I'm hopeful that there will be sufficient distrust that "jailbreaking" or "rooting" TV controller boards will be turnkey enough to move to something like OpenWrt or GrapheneOS but for TVs.

Have citations of case law that doesn't exist been addressed? It seemed like that kind of outcome being punished might make people less likely to try relying on LLM output for legal situations without an expert human performing a review.

eInk does seem like an awesome choice for this to me too.

I've gone without a bike computer for the same reasons as not wanting a second device. I used my phone for years in a water proof front frame bag with a transparent cover. Usually for not more than 3 hours at a time. Only on my Pixel 7a did I end up with burn in from the Wahoo Android app's status screen, where "n/a" for not having a power meter ultimately burnt in after about 2 years, at least that's when I noticed it. Now I just go without being able to glance down and see ride stats or directions. More planning or stopping if I reroute is required, but I didn't want to damage the phone... :(

Presumably an app could cycle displayed screens, if that's what you meant by switching modes, to avoid burn in? But I really thought AMOLED was past that when I never saw it on previous phones.

Title has an extra d after Steam.

> So whoever is writing their email is mixing these two up, but you're reading the policy itself and it is fairly clear-cut what it means for you, right?

This (rhetorical?) question seems to suggest that you have a level of understanding or have done the analysis required to come to such a meaning. It seems to me that it would be most beneficial if you simply shared that analysis.

To me, seeing this here for the first time, it is not at all obvious what the terms mean for someone seeking a donation, because of the past behavioral detail of WireGuard going through something similar. The terms you quote seem to me to state that since there is a tax exempt donation involved, the prohibition on routing to a non-Google Play billing workflow should not be in effect.