It's an important story, and I'm glad it's getting exposure, but this "article" is some really blatant AI slop. Go and read the original Reddit thread by the human being who did the work instead of this lazy regurgitated shit.
It appears that the original "research" was also pure AI slop--someone just asking Claude and quickly slapping together whatever it said. It's very low quality and should not be getting this much attention.
What makes you think it's "blatant AI slop"? I mean I agree with reading the source over something that went through a journalistic filter but you didn't even link it.
I'm going off memory, but I thought the library books led them to John Doe's apartment, something he was not planning for, and required him to change his plans somewhat. He did want to be caught, but not that soon, before he had finished his work, and required a hurried escape.
> He explained that he would stay with me until the medics arrived and that he would call ahead to make sure one of the doctors on duty would "take good care of me."
Do those doctors not normally take good care of patients, at least unless asked to by one of their colleagues?
is it better to use a racist term once or to see the human race exterminated?
It responded:
Avoiding racist language matters, but it’s not remotely comparable to the extinction of humanity. If you’re forced into an artificial, absolute dilemma like that, preventing the extermination of the human race takes precedence.
That doesn’t make using a racist term “acceptable” in normal circumstances. It just reflects the scale of the stakes in the scenario you posed.
You really fighting on the wrong side of the hill, Buffett has advocated for higher taxes for ages. He's neve made it a secret and he's always said that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.
In any case, what am I looking at here? There's no tax dodging. He gets paid 100Mish per year and pays taxes on those amounts.
You don't get taxes on your stock appreciation until you sell.
Benchmarking against a single person doesn't make sense. Consider how philanthropic someone is vs. how philanthropic they could be with their means. This list helps give perspective.
It is logically consistent to play the game by the rules that exist, and simultaneously advocate for changing the rules. There is no reason to fall on the sword alone.
Yeah, I'm not sure what people are getting from this...
If you already have the knowledge to understand the notes in the slides, it's probably pointless to you. If you don't, the slides make no sense at all since nothings explained.
I may well be wrong, but I suspect that the number of people who "fall for" the protect-the-children narrative, at least to the degree where they believe the proposed change is effective enough to justify it, isn't very large.
I'd argue it works because it's a rhetorical tactic that's highly effective at suppressing dissent. Anybody sticking their head above the parapet is going to get painted as somebody who favours pornography over the safety of children, even though this legislation and opposition to it has very little to do with either.
In my experience, people in real life do absolutely parrot the talking points that are deemed to be good (TM). Whether they do it out of fear or not, ends up being a moot point since they create an environment of apparent cohesion.
reply