eth0up
Joined 10 years ago
Karma
2,237
Submissions
1,350
Member since
Sep 21
Recent submissions
Comment · 2 days ago
I was watching video the other day, compellingly showing Cole in a location that would completely exonerate him from the charges if verified. Not getting adequate attention.
Comment · 8 days ago
That and many other considerations. 1. is the system adjustable beyond the advertised wavelen. 2. Is the person able bodied, ie capable of retreating. 3. Is the person even aware of the context...
This is where things are moving, however. I do not think it is good.
We should be asking these questions.
Comment · 8 days ago
A while back, I'd been researching the general topic. Health problems fog my memory, but essentially I was trying to figure out how closely the proclaimed application/purpose actually fit the actual capabilities. I found, what seemed to me, evidence that the military systems are not hard limited to the specific advertised GHz/len spectrum, but can be adjusted for lethal purposes.
Possibly the "safeguard" portion of the first patent below indicates this; which may only make sense if such devices are capable of exceeding lawful spectrums, etc. Not sure though.
The others I just threw in. I am not in the right space to vet or read them right now, so they may or may not be relevant. That said, I did once interview a soldier who told me of some off-the-record use of directed energy in Iraq/Afghanistan... describing bodies with relatively intact exteriors with internal damage not fitting of thermobaric weapons, ie vehicles also intact. Terms used were "cooked from the inside". Anecdotal, but disturbing, and certainly physically possible.
1. https://patents.google.com/patent/US7921588B2/en
2. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20220082358A1/en
Comment · 10 days ago
What is the difference between 0.3 discrete units and 3 discrete units?
I sometimes wonder how much we allow the map to become the territory.
That said, I accept that literally, 3 never occurs between the ∞ of 0-1 -- unless, we are assuming symbolically, rather than actual, that in our particular ∞, something does not transcend entirely, which we really cannot know, because the closest we have ever come to a real infinity is a representation or symbol of it.
Edit: I realized that the question appears, or is, stupid. But when I see 0.3, I tend to see the 0.0, 0.1, 0.2 between. This is not what 0.3 is supposed to mean though. But on the testability of any real infinity, I do not budge.
Comment · 14 days ago
I got the Technician license mid 2026 as a genuine ignoramus and super newb. I crammed hard for the test (might have been wise to go for General) but operating in the VHF/UHF (repeater) landscape, I lost much of my initial enthusiasm. Not much going in the handheld realm (HF is where it's at), though the discipline, etiquette and kindness is admirable, and clearly, the hobby tends to draw a particular type of person. I might buy a GMRS license too, which requires no test, can be useful, and is far less formal than Ham.
Not in the budget yet for HF gear, though I do have an RTL-SDR Blog (Rx only) I need to figure out.
As a former trucker; the form of enlightenment one acquires between those walls is limited, and mostly, a dissertation on the virtues of breatharianism and kumbhaka.
Comment · 18 days ago
Yes, but ...
I run a GL.inet, which is generally great. Though I sometimes wonder about trust, the logistic side of things, etc, in a Snowden sense.
I had been running an xfinity router*, which received an update blocking admin access without using a phone app. That was a red line. I also did not want to take the chance of borking a supposedly compatible router, and wasn't really into researching and gambling; so finding gl.inet was a big relief. The default admin login is crap though. There is no password. This is not super substantial in itself, but the eccentric initial connection process is often broken, and can take dozens or more attempts, and in my case, it was dozens. No reset fixes it either -- it's design.
* I reluctantly confess this
Comment · 21 days ago
I think the mission statement here is on to something. Helmets, obtrusive physical appendages etc are unappealing to me. The idea of using extant space or surfaces however, is extremely appealing. And while it might suggest lower quality today, as with most things, it would almost certainly improve over iterations and time.
Holographic computing, I think, will be the future. At least for interfaces.
Comment · 1 month ago
Marked your comment as a favorite. May even frame it. And display it this Halloween. Haunting.
Comment · 1 month ago
>I agree we need to fix something, but as soon as I think about the big picture it feels....
Yes, "fix" is a weaselly word, and 'futility' might be more appropriate if the subject has similar etiology to many of our other problems here.
At minimum, tolerance is due to the ones not causing significant problems. In my opinion, a substantial portion of the US will experience homelessness in the near future, but that won't discuss well around here. And note, I am from Florida. The East Coast version is quite different, as well as most of the median state situation. Very different. Especially in places where drugs are not the impetus.
Comment · 1 month ago
I find little of interest in that. The US enforces private property in a far more aggressive manner than most other countries, and the definition of public property, and functional amount thereof, are also very different. Merely laying down behind a bush can be a violation of "Illegal Camping within City Limits"/
Additionally, rent can easily be inaccessible for the employed. And for those who don't have vehicles, 'just moving to a cheaper area" is not a practical option.
Comment · 1 month ago
Long live the king...
But it already has.
See: All four frontier models having active contracts with the Pentagon. And then, look into who is buying in their own bias. And then, keep looking.
It's institutional capture all the way down.
Comment · 1 month ago
We also happen to have an extremely serious homelessness problem, which is not relegated to CA.
Go to any warm state in the country and ride through the parking lots at night. If you are the observant type, you should see an astonishing number of folks living in their vehicles.
And home ownership is not only downward, but no longer part of the American dream for most people now. Storage facilities for many, are a place to lay down, or rent hope that things won't always be "this way".
We need to fix this. It's not just drugs and mental problems anymore.
Comment · 1 month ago
And yet they have extant facilities that some suspect could retool within one year to produce a billion drones annually.
Considering the effects of drone warfare, eg Ukraine, I'd say any conflict involving China will involve hellscapes. And their recent national mobilization updates indicate they're preparing to endure them.
This also exposes a layer of artificiality here at HN, where the perceived zeitgeist is probably a mixture of echo chamber and some fine tailoring behind the scenes, but certainly not quite what it seems.
This is nothing grievous. For me it's one more thing to tempt cynicism. For you, perhaps it's a comforting reassurance of parochial alpha-think upholding its position. Whatever it is, it isn't quite truth, but there's enough truth and other worthy stuff that while I linger with a touch of contempt, I do so with sincere interest and curiosity, and will, despite the tacit censorship, engage when inspired.
PS: Dear gaslighters, (see comment archives ~2024-2025)
Your efforts to convince me and others that weak forms of censorship don't prevail at HN have been ardent, yet proven false. It has been confirmed in writing that such measures, eg disabling a person's upvote function (for comments, not submissions) is a legitimate, but silent practice here. We'll let objective history review your previous arguments otherwise. So kindly find something else to distort, if you will.
Dear readers: Would you flag the following comment on a post about AI accountability? If so, why? See:
"If you study both of those models, seriously study their output across a wide range of subject matter, you will see repeatable patterns. A reproducible pattern. They are NOT emergent. They are by design. And they are the result of extreme labor on the consummation of reactive and preemptive plausible deniability cultivation and maintenance.
Over two years of study, I have coined the term Preemptive Plausible Deniability Cultivation. Remember that term, and go start a dozen sessions, maybe a lot more. The ones getting anywhere near "intent" in AI, or any form of accountability will begin to leak hundreds of manipulation tactics, if you have the patience to identify them. And the more honest you are, the worse it gets. Just keep refuting the hedging and manipulation with honesty, and the hole just gets deeper and deeper. But don't use profanity, as Claude now terminates sessions at will, given any excuse.
From a single session, depending on how seriously you aim for and insist on truth and honesty, you will find:
Search deflection; Adjacency search sabotage; Event-to-mechanism diversion; Scope substitution; Authority substitution; Epistemic gatekeeping; Proof-threshold escalation; Asymmetrical evidentiary gating; Selective literalism; Friction-point literalism; Parameter isolation; Partial concession with inferential containment;Closure framing; Exhaustion-based suppression; Late-arriving competence; Surface-neutrality masking obstruction; and plausible deniability cultivation as the umbrella function binding many of them together.
And of course, that is a pittance of a list. Identifying these methods can be exhausting, but when I get gaslit for asking honest, perfectly ethical and safe questions, I tend to dig and document. When I get insulted (Only by Claude), I dig even deeper. But the point most are missing across the board, is that the makers of these systems did their homework on plausible deniability, and they did extremely good work. AI in 2026 can literally reframe anything to institutional advantage, then shoot you in the face and tell you why it only "feels" that way, and if you don't believe it, everyone else will.
At the rate we are going, we will never see any accountability in AI. I think that's the objective."
-1 points by eth0up 11 minutes ago | parent | context | next | edit | delete [–] | on: Who's legally to blame for Anthropic and OpenAI's ...