tempfile

Probably he should have actually said "what's the point of writing then?", because there isn't one. Just like food is fuel, writing is thinking.

The article title seems to have changed from the earlier version, which importantly emphasised that the FBI pressured King to commit suicide.

I tried to be as charitable as possible.

> I don’t mean that.

So you actually think the USA, the most powerful and richest country in the history of the world, is unable to police its borders? That is the only alternative to what I said (which is that they are able but not willing).

> I’m saying you do have to control the borders and you do have to deport people who break the rules and enter our stay illegally.

Again, nobody really denies this, if I interpret you charitably. But the question is always how rigid the laws should be, how many other rights you are willing to sacrifice in order to hit the "deport illegals" metric. If you overstay one day, what happens. If you overstay due to a medical emergency, what happens. If you are in danger in your home country and need to enter illegally in order to claim asylum, what happens. How much of a soviet-style "papers, please" dungeon are you prepared to turn your country into in order to find all the illegals.

You will never ever police any crime to 100%. Immigration is very hard to police effectively without adding literal military-style checkpoints and sending in the gestapo (as is happening in the US). Besides that, if you look at the big picture, the vast majority of these people are harmless and have perfectly reasonable reasons for wanting to come. Remember that it is an accident of history that you get to live in a rich country.

The US in particular has had massive unregulated immigration through most of its history, by the way, and it didn't cause the place to burn to the ground. So please keep a bit of perspective.

If you were correct, then your question (why are they so gullible) would not have to be asked, because they would not be gullible. So you are wrong, somewhere.

We have no idea whatsoever how LLMs can seem to behave intelligently. Therefore making analogies with how we behave intelligently (a thing we also do not deeply understand) is not going to tell you anything.

> If they can "understand" (whatever that means for an AI)

Without an answer to this it is impossible to answer your question with anything other than a vague guess.

> That’s an extreme take.

Big words considering the rest of your comment.

> If it permits just anyone to enter or exit, it is technically not a nation anymore.

You cannot "permit" something you do not control, so this is a contradiction in terms. If you mean that the constraints put on the US by itself to not police immigration in overly violent or cruel ways mean that it does not control immigration, then by the same logic the 4th amendment implies that there is no rule of law in the US (since certain criminals can't be convicted due to bad actions by the state).

> But being choosy about who gets in and who does not.

Nobody really denies this. The question is how violent or cruel you can be in the exercise of this choosiness.

> Look at the riots in Europe right now

The riots in Europe are not primarily about immigration. Get off twitter.

What the fuck are the little wasd/arrow keys supposed to mean? They have no relationship to the movement of the character or the camera. It's just flashing buttons.

How can the solution to LLM slop be sending more LLM slop back?

Isn't this just blog slop? It doesn't actually present an argument, it just states its conclusion several times in different ways. Even if you agree, why would you upvote this?

"we" in this sentence is really a handful of encloistered silicon valley weirdos. Most people do not like it and have no real say in the matter.

It remains to be seen that having a frontier LLM gives you a competitive leg up over someone with deepseek flash (or no AI at all, frankly).

I'm tired, boss.

Code is not a material out of which you make objects. It is a precise description of a process. You do not get better plans by globbing them onto each other! This is not and never has been an "artisans vs factories" fight. It is an "I know what I'm doing vs I don't care" fight.

I don't understand this comment. You seem to be describing in basic terms what a remote code execution vulnerability is. What does that have to do with the comment you're replying to?

Most of this is mitigated completely by making everything read-only except for a small number of users you know personally. That doesn't actually preclude most kinds of political work (e.g. noticeboards for protest organising). It does preclude social media, obviously.

> I mean the guy was elected, so obviously not a king.

The point of the protest is to prevent him from making himself a king.

> And couldn't even change the name of the art center, so not that powerful.

This is really weak cherry picking. He has successfully removed medical care from millions of Americans, started foreign wars of aggression, destabilised several countries, probably tanked US international reputation for a generation... he is incredibly powerful.

I would have guessed the important part is whether what he said was misinformation, since that's the whole thing we're arguing about.

> touch grass

cringe

Which is better - two attack vectors that can be mitigated by an expert, or one attack vector that can't be mitigated by anyone?

If that's the point of your comment, you should have said that. It's not very clear.

This isn't misinformation. The MAGA gang were trying to do that. They were trying to score political points from it. They still are.

Of course, they were also correct. But these quoted statements are primarily about intention and motive, not really arguing (or even speculating particularly strongly) that the shooter actually was MAGA.

Incidentally, this does not seem like particularly dangerous misinformation at all. MAGA supporters are probably the safest group in America (it is, after all, not a safe country for anyone).

I agree, countries that do not adhere to CO2 targets should be heavily sanctioned. They are killing us, after all.

Because you're asking for help from WhatsApp. If they don't want to do something for you, they don't have to. Again, the only thing I'm saying is that it isn't lying. Just like if you ask me for money, and I say I don't have any with me - it isn't lying to omit the fact I could go to a cash machine and get money.

It isn't lying by omission to avoid saying something on a support page that you do not in fact support. The chatbot should not recommend actions that are judged case-by-case by a human being.

> WhatsApp's privacy policy for Europe tells you that you can complain to a data protection regulator, and it names the law that gives you that right.

The first line of TFA. Unless you're distinguishing between "can" and "should"?

When did DEI go too far, and why? I am not aware of any anti-DEI position that thinks it was ever an acceptable practice. It has been resisted since the 80s.

Corrected: you can't say you do anything for women that actually matters.

What does this even mean? Every initiative is kept alive by money. It was very clearly attacked by the Trump administration, and once they started attacking, DEI initiatives stopped. Why else do you think the "implosions", apparently happening all the time, were finally too much to sustain around 2025?

Doesn't seem like that's implied at all. There is no implication about whether it is good or bad actually, but if the fact it was attacked is a bad thing, the only inference is that on balance it did more harm than good.

I want to agree with you, but most software projects people work on are ridden with unknown bugs and people do in fact live with this. I'm not aware of any commercial software project that arrives at the goal "not having any bugs or unforeseen failures at all". And where this does happen (space probes?) it is very expensive.

IMO the issue with LLMs is they massively widen the "unknown unknowns" (skipping review makes this problem even worse). This is obviously much worse when an LLM is actually a part of the software rather than just producing software that is otherwise deterministic.

The evidence from skilled vs unskilled users vibe coding is not on your side, I think.

It may not be necessary to think in those terms exactly, but if you are not even able to think in those terms, you probably will be no good at prompting the LLM either. It's quite plausible that someone can be a productive dev with claude if they don't know exactly how the message queue is processed. But if they don't know there is a message queue at all, that is much less likely.

Likewise, you don't care exactly how an if statement gets converted into machine code, but you do know precisely what an if statement is and how it should behave, and could identify if it was buggy, and that that part of the codebase contains a bug. If you can't do that, then there is an impossible-to-estimate probability that at some point you get stuck and no progress will ever be possible. I don't see that as a winning strategy, in the long run (but it may work very well in the short term).