> Whether something sounds like a human, a book, or a language model doesn’t really affect whether the behavior it describes exists.

It matters.

> the hardest thing to scale is not software. It is trust.

For example: Is this your sincerely held belief, the conclusion of all of the preceding words, and the point you were trying to express?

Because it reads, superficially, like shallow self-help pablum.

If you want your readers to differentiate these words from those words, you at least owe them the assurance that you've thought this through, and are willing to defend this idea.

If this is your own idea, it might be worth some consideration beyond its superficial presentation. If this is the output of an LLM trained on shallow observations and presentation style, it is not worth consideration.

Why, and for whom, do you publish?

Very yikes.

Also wrong:

> By eschewing the lath lattices, buildings now have way more room in wall cavities for improved insulation and conduits

The cavities are exactly the same size, plaster+lath, or drywall.

Most residential construction won't use conduit anywhere, and commercial construction would never bury a conduit inside a wall, regardless of wall covering.

These are weird things to get wrong.

Please describe the alternative stance, and how it scales to societies and casual acquaintences.

> I am left having to assume that, in the absence of some clear indicator to the contrary, whoever I am writing to will actually have rather strict expectations

This is self-defeating. You have the option (and I recommend it) to intentionally adopt the opposite assumption:

Zero communication is urgent, unless explicitly described as such.

It might be appropriate to make exceptions for certain people. Parents, partners, children. Maybe some work people during a crunch. Maybe some friends going through difficult times.

The age of consent is 16 in many US states, FWIW.

I've used FUSE for something similar.

There are sample "drivers" in easily-modified python that are fast enough for casual use.

Choosing a belief that is more desirable than the most likely case, is by definition irrational, and can be called optimistic.

Choosing a belief that is less desirable than the most likely, is equally irrational, clearly pessimistic, and often self-fulfilling.

So the ideal belief system is irrational (optimistic) but only to a chosen and realistic extent.

Somewhere between Pollyanna and Eeyore, but more P than E. And as irrational psychologies go, moderate-P is by far the more successful of the two.

> Cultivating optimism is the first step

I agree with this, and I recognize it as the good intentions behind faith communities.

People are (statistically) terrible at creating optimism on a blank canvas. They need narratives and common points of understanding.

And then the other side of human nature gets to take its swing at the mass of optimistic people with a shared belief system. :)

They can refuse, and they have refused. See San Bernardino and the concept of "compelled work".

That was the old US law, not the one where Tim Cook delivered gold bars to Trump

It remains the US law, and you are wrong about everything in your short sentence.

> 1. iOS has well-known poorly documented zero-click exploits

PoC || GTFO, to use the vernacular.

If you're talking about historical bugs, don't forget the update adoption curves.

No one will hand over the several $1m 0-day as PoC for free, as there are grey-market products based on the same tired exploits.

"Not My Circus, Not My Monkeys" as they say. =3

My understanding is that there is current consensus that active iOS 0days are not likely to be available at the LE level.