Marcan is the primary reason I don't use Asahi Linux. I don't know what's in the code, and marcan seems emotionally dysregulated. I don't want my OS being an unwitting participant in whatever he's up to. He's also Asahi Lina, and people who create alternate personas seem to always launder some of their behavior through one or the other. It just doesn't pass the vibe check for me.

Social media is a cancer today. When I read news like this, I think "darn kids will never know how good we had it, the internet was for nerds and not hostile!"

But as I roll that thought over in my head I wonder, was the internet ever really safe? Maybe there weren't companies messing with your psychology for profit, but perhaps it was all an espionage platform the whole time. The internet, http and html in general, has a smell of being designed from the ground up as a spy tool. It's as if we've all been filling out Obsidian documents on ourselves and voluntarily linking them, and somewhere there is a central node that can see the whole brain.

Maybe it wasn't hostile in the same way where it turns your brain into mush, but it seems like it was never safe.

Sure, it may not have been safe back in the day, but the internet wasn't in your pocket at all times and pinging you with notifications. It didn't replace nearly all your in-person social interactions. It's the ubiquitousness of social media that is a big part of the problem.

The special forces soldier bet on his team's success. He risked his life. His bet would not alter his behavior in anyway incongruous with mission objectives. Is that really that bad if the direction of the bet isn't unethical?

He could have died and this would be a non-story, just someone throwing 32k away before they were killed in action.

People are focusing on the use of confidential information and calling this insider trading, which is fair, he had knowledge that the trading public did not. But to lump him in with refs who call games wrong on purpose is ridiculous. In one example you are betting on something you want to happen anyway, it is not deception. In the other, you are profiting from deliberate fraud. I think there needs to be some sort of category difference between these two.

While it seems like an interesting point - a kind of 'doubling down' - its not clear cut at all.

Firstly, the dichotomy you presented for the individual is: succeed, live, and make loads of money vs fail, die, and lose a fair chunk. The argument you make with this dichotomy is that the gambling doesn't affect anything. However the reality is that there are many ways for the mission to end - fail, live, lose a fair chunk being notable because when the mission is going sideways the individual becomes incentivised to put themselves and others at greater risk to make a successful outcome more likely. Succeed, live, lose your squad mates, make loads of money becomes more likely as well as fail, live, lose your squad mates.

Secondly, insider trading is and always will be a signal for others. If you're only allowed to bet in one direction it becomes a form of information leak - monitor who is liquidating their assets to gamble on outcomes. For any project it becomes a signal to others - if your boss isn't remortgaging to gamble more then you know its time to jump ship. This will in turn have significant effects on outcomes.

No, there doesn't need to be.

I think the bigger issue is that he effectively leaked the raid. Now intelligence agencies will be constantly watching the geopolitical questions on prediction markets for big bets. Of course the Trump administration seems to be leaking through prediction markets as well and I doubt they’ll face any consequences.

Is this due to Mythos and other LLMs finding a bunch of obscure bugs or simply a precaution? If someone (a normie not a gentooman) wanted to run Linux on retro hardware how would they do it? Boot Debian Sarge?

Is that why healthcare costs are up, or is it because of the insurance mafia?

It’s the doctors.

Insurance company profit margins are capped by law and if anything their incentives are to pay the hospitals less.

US physician salaries are astronomical compared to anywhere else in the world.

Profit margins are capped by percentage. That creates the perverse intensive for insurance companies to pursue ever increasing costs in order to increase profits.

But they don’t do this.

They fight tooth and nail to keep the claims paid to doctors and hospitals low.

You are forgetting about competition, increasing costs means directly increasing premiums, and higher premiums means lower business.

What competition? When enrollment comes around or you switch jobs you get maybe two insurance providers to choose from.

Are the Irish unique when it comes to metabolizing coffee?

Local groups of people sometimes share genotype characteristics. Better studies use a broad spectrum of people - a less biased sample set.

So the answer to your question is: we can't know, from this study.

Don't worry, these CRUD app software artisans will land on their feet somewhere.

I don't understand this comment at all. Are you being sarcastic? Digging at the developers? At Meta?

I'm batting my eye.

I've been using Edge for a couple years now. I used to laugh at the idea of using Internet Explorer I mean Edge but it's actually pretty good and quite performant.

Same Chromium rendering engine (e.g. as opposed to using Firefox or Safari, which I'd prefer but especially for frontend development testing against Chromium is ideal given their market share) and same keyboard shortcuts as Chrome so was an easy transition.

This is probably not top-level worthy and I'm going to hell for this but this reads like slop. Maybe I have trust issues with content now, because everything looks like slop. But I am pretty sure I can get that essay out of claude and just sed the funny grammatical characters out.

I didn’t get the slop feeling. I could see some long winded argumentation that diminished the messaging. The important aspect in this is that someone with political inclination can use the powerful imagery of a scapegoat sacrifice to appeal to the psychological bias that we are better than previous people and fight a casus belli with another one.

I would argue the author even deliberately misunderstands engineering.

> Engineering is the commitment to understanding what actually causes what [...]

This sounds like science to me. Engineering is the exploitation of scientific principles for human reasons. Whether those reasons are "clean water" or "war" does not take away from the essence of their engineeringness.