> The anarchist cells responsible for sabotaging rail systems across France, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands in 2026, relied on A/I Collective tools and services to claim responsibility for the attacks
Hmm. So they are going by “A/I vets its users” and users sabotaged rail systems so therefore A/I is materially assisting terrorists? I wonder how this vetting works? Do users have to submit government issued documents, write essays? Do they make users sign non-violence agreement ToS. I mean heck, Facebook and Twitter has material supporting various things like that and US government is designated them as terrorists.
By this logic services like Telegram or Signal would be designated "terrorist organizations". But the current admin is purely vibes-based, so we'll never know for sure
Well, in my state, you don't "apply" for a gun like you apply for a license. It is just document that you purchased it after the seller runs a background check.
The government isn't attesting to your capabilities - that is still on you as a citizen.
> you don't "apply" for a gun like you apply for a license.
>... background check
Who requires these background checks? Because the seller wouldn't do them unless obligated. Obviously the check and paperwork around it constitutes at least a de facto application to the government for permission to purchase the firearm.
IIRC from the last A/I thread, there's actually a special law that basically says gun manufacturers are not liable for what people do with the guns, and says it specifically about guns, not any other industry.
No other industry needed that law. The PLCAA was put in place in 2005 because anti-gun specifically devised a plan to sue gun makers in lieu of any success in changing gun laws.
It is absolute nonsense to ignore why the law exists while you complain about it existing.
It was necessary because a group of billionaires (Joyce Foundation) decided they were going to do a run around congress and engage in lawfare for their goals.
It’s nonsense to pretend it came out of no where for no reason.
Source can have markers inserted in it as weighted word choice or phrase choices, how commas are inserted, etc., so that the output can still can be identified. In other words just because it's source doesn't mean it can be watermarked.
The same trick worked for me 15 years ago to drop a lot of log noise out of constant connection attempts. Felt a bit bad but in the end it turned out fairly well.
So what do you think we should do if we catch a murderer? Should we let them go? I just don’t get the angle here at all. It sounds a bit like we’re talking about apples and you’re telling people we should care about motorcycles. Sure we can like or dislike both, but’s what’s the connection though?
I don't necessarily agree with the parent comment, but I think the angle might be one of utilitarianism, i.e: when caught, both should be put on trial and punished if found guilty, but the current focus of society to put more energy into catching one type over another is misguided as far as what will be best for society in general.
Again, not saying I agree with that philosophy, but the logic is valid.
If society believed stabbings and other close personal attacks were the only real acts of a murderous personality you would be OK with a sniper who kills hundreds getting probation as a normal person who just lost their way because that's like apples to motorcycles?
I never said that. Only was pointing out that society treats those that harm more will less punishment. How many people are being harmed with fraud like crypto-currency scams or stock pump and dumps or wage theft vs violence?
> The fallout from the saga is likely to continue. Simonsohn and several of Gino’s co-authors last year launched a project to assess the reliability of her past papers. So far, this has led to a further retraction in February and a correction in July. Science reported in April that Gino also appeared to have plagiarized passages of text in some of her publications.
It’s also hilarious how the judge let her continue the suit against Harvard. Like “hey I plagiarized fine, but you focused on my plagiarism more than others’ that not fair”. Even as more retractions due to plagiarism kept coming…
I think we've seen recently that it is a dark kind of funny. When your standards for catching fraud are as low as top academia, and expectations might be beyond the probable without it, it creates a conundrum when someone with a prejudice starts to pick targets to actually investigate.
Ah yes also the author of “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty”. The most amazing thing is he is still a professor at Duke. Wonder if he focused much on academic dishonesty in his book…
Institutions like Duke benefit enormously from having people like this around. They can claim they have lots of highly cited and well published researchers, a bit of controversy is free publicity, etc. They make money off him and so they defend him. It helps support the myth that they are good educational institutions. US private universities are grift mills.
This happens at any scale. Manager picks a bad candidate to join the team? Well now they are responsible for the decision. Their worth is tied to their bad decision and they will defend the bad choice to the detriment others on the team. So it’s an element of Duke also defending their honor since they invited and supposedly vetted him.
> One problem with this subject is that it tends to lead to bragging contests about who has run the most hazardous reactions. But think about it: if these reactions have all been run for good reasons with the best protective equipment there is less to brag about. And if they haven’t, then the discussion turns into figuring out who has been the biggest fool
I suspect the answer is "bragging rights" in this case.
Can someone who knows a thing or two about chemistry explain why one would need to synthesize or purchase this chemical. Given that it involves a student I'll take "because of bragging rights to impress everyone" as a valid response, but wondering if it has any value is otherwise? Is it one of those "well despite its danger it's still the best at X, Y and Z and nothing else comes even close"?
It can be something as simple as an analytical reference.
If you’re testing for dimethyl mercury in say fish, you need a standardized sample of dimethyl mercury to run.
These references are highly dilute and thus less hazardous. But some labs prepare their own references rather than buying them.
That requires working with pure dimethyl mercury.
The hazard is manageable as long as you’re prepared. Chemists work with lots of hazardous chemicals and it can all be managed with the right preparation.
I forget the guy's name, but he writes entertaining articles about chemistry things he'll never mess with. I wonder if Dimethyl Mercury is one of them.
Edit: reading further down the comments, Derek Lowe is guy.
Hmm. So they are going by “A/I vets its users” and users sabotaged rail systems so therefore A/I is materially assisting terrorists? I wonder how this vetting works? Do users have to submit government issued documents, write essays? Do they make users sign non-violence agreement ToS. I mean heck, Facebook and Twitter has material supporting various things like that and US government is designated them as terrorists.
reply