Taking away people's guns is unamerican, unless you're taking them away from someone I consider to be unamerican, like an immigrant or a liberal; in that case, it's for the good of America that we take away their guns, and the people who wrote the constitution never intended for it to apply to all people the way it says, but only white people and non-white people those white people find to be convenient allies for the time being.
California made open carry illegal when the Black Panthers started doing legal street marches with big guns strapped to their backs. It seems one of the best ways to make the right wing do something you want is to expose them to their own policies.
In Florida, a surgeon refused to administer anesthetic to Republicans under the law intended to made it legal to deny abortions, since it said it was legal for any medical professional to deny any healthcare on religious or moral grounds. Not really — unfortunately that was a hoax screenshot, photoshopped. But it would make them repeal that law post–haste.
Unfortunately this doesn't work with the modern right wing. Admitting you are wrong is a mortal sin, instead you invent reasons why it's not okay when someone else does it. As an example, just about every statement the administration has made regarding the murders ICE keeps committing.
99% of climate scientists: human-triggered climate change is real
1% of climate scientists: climate change is probably just something that happens and we can't do anything about it
Legacy media: it's important that we give equal time to both sides of this argument.
Social media: climate change is a lie and you can tell because 99% of climate scientists all agree that it's real! That's how you know it's a conspiracy! You can't trust the institution! Also buy these supplements, they cure covid and cancer and chemtrails!
Zuck is opposed to any sort of regulation of misinformation and lies because that sort of content drives engagement and that's what makes him money. If people on social media weren't allowed to post outright falsehoods then the entire right-wing rage machine would collapse in on itself and social media companies' KPIs would tank.
They're not a networking company, they're an access control company. Their original product is based around networking, and now this new one is based around AI access and metrics.
This product isn't about managing and distributing API keys, it's about managing and distributing access to these services throughout the org. In fact, it's more about being able to avoid managing and distributing API keys, which is IMHO even better.
The first I heard of them was they were the company around WireGuard, a networking technology.
We recently brought them into the stack to manage said access, it has been painful, aiui their configuration is not intuitive (not the one working on it). I suspect any further expansion will be a big ask after the dismal experience. I certainly don't trust them to manage my secrets and access afterwards. I haven't even found an enjoyable DX talking point in either my personal or professional usage either
> They're not a networking company, they're an access control company.
This is like Ripping saying they are not an HR company, they are an access control company. I got into this very argument with them on a sales call looking for a payroll provider. They wanted to manage the keys to everything, I don't trust them to safely guard access to my cloud projects, nor is it something I even want my HR/payroll company even considering doing. This new product sounds like TailScale was the keys to the kingdom and I sure as hell am not giving it to them after the disappointing rollout of their established networking technology
Not to mention that storing the API keys on a developer machine (or distributing them to a developer machine) is the first step towards a developer's API keys getting leaked or exfiltrated. With this approach, the developer never has the API key on their machine at all (and you don't have to rotate or invalidate the key when they leave).
Testing on what? It produces answers, that's all it's meant to do. Not correct answers or factual answers; just answers.
Every AI company seems to push two points:
1. (Loudly) Our AI can accelerate human learning and understanding and push humanity into a new age of enlightenment.
2. (Fine print) Our AI cannot be relied on for any learning or understanding and it's entirely up to you to figure out if what our AI has confidently told you, and is vehemently arguing is factual, is even remotely correct in any sense whatsoever.
How does the AI tell the difference between trustworthy YouTube postings, accidental misinformation, deliberate misinformation, plausible-sounding pseudoscience, satire, out-of-date information, and so on?
Some videos are a great source of information; many are the opposite. If AI can't tell the difference (and it can't) then it shouldn't be using them as sources or suggesting them for further study.
It's difficult for an AI to tell what information from YouTube is correct and reliable and which is pseudoscience, misinformation, or outright lies.
In that context, I think excluding YouTube as a source makes sense; not because YT has no useful content, but because it has no way of determining useful content.
reply