That would not fly in Canadian courts, I honestly doubt it would in American one either.

I’m not a fan of a lot of his politics but I honestly thought that interview was worth listening to. He has some interesting nuanced takes.

He raises exactly that point in the interview when talking about slop grenades.

That article feels AI written.

🙏thank you, it genuinely sounds like an interesting topic

I suspect that everyone in here complaining about AI didn’t actually read the article.

The article states that Palantir’s Maven system was over-relied on, and compressed a process that would have taken months into one that took days, but it also points out that that Maven didn’t actually make a mistake based on the way it was supposed to operate.

It sounds like some military personnel were mistaken in how much vetting and revetting maven itself would do, but the article also lays much of the blame at Hegseth’s gutting of the civilian harm roles, and failures in intelligence vetting and gathering that fed into maven in the first place. Years ago US intelligence personnel had flagged that Minab had turned into a school, but that information was not in the database used by maven.

Like I have no doubt that Maven is part of the problem, but it sounds like it was far from the only part.

You’ve linked to an entire YouTube channel of content … May I suggest picking a single video that would be a good entry point instead?

*types of people

*people

I haven’t dodged, I’ve already said I didn’t.

You seem real pleasant to be around, the real type of person that draws people to their cause and doesn’t just alienate everyone!

:/

Come on now. My point is that the headline is needlessly divisive.

Do you really think that distinction changes that?

Also, the article headline is that ‘men wearing smart glasses on dates is a red flag’…

Regardless of the stats of who is being creepy currently, the headline is still wrong and needlessly gendered as anyone who wears them on a date is a red flag.

So new smart technology with cameras come out, people across the gender spectrum use them to be creeps (smartphones).

Now new smart technology with cameras come out (smart glasses), and you think the more valid evidence to look at is a handful of anecdotal stories, rather than applying similar statistics from the previous technology?

I have no stories of anyone abusing these glasses other than the small handful of anecdotes in the article that can fit on one hand.

And as the article points out, 7M of these glasses were sold, so 2-3 stories is not exactly statistically significant or relevant.

I can find you numerous stories of female stalkers and creeps using cellphones though, if that is would help.

I can think of countless cases of women sharing stuff on social media that they shouldn’t.

The point is that creeps wear creep glasses.

Just because the author is being needlessly divisive for clicks doesn’t mean you need to continue that chain.

Given that you’re operating on anecdotal evidence, the onus would be on you to prove that the effect is exclusively gender linked.

I quite frankly wouldn’t be surprised if men are more of a problem with them than women or non binary folk, but as-is the headline is needlessly and intentionally divisive,and does not support that conclusion. Hell, I would argue that the majority of what most people post on social media is creepy, men and women included. It’s weird to share non consensual images of people publicly, regardless of how insta rotted your brain is.

We should all always be trying to use people first language unless there’s a really specific reason not to, and in this case the point is that people being creepy wear creep glasses, there’s no reason to bring gender into it, the reader can draw their own conclusions based on what they know about creepy people.

No, OpenAI heard about a pair of researchers who were getting close to solving the problem and spent $22M on compute power to scoop them.

https://techcrunch.com/2026/09/08/openai-fought-dirty-on-career-making-math-problem-says-nyu-mathematician/

Even more concerningly, the researchers had been using OpenAI’s codex model in their earlier work, meaning that OpenAI’s model may have literally directly trained from and ripped off their work.

The best time may have been yesterday, but the second best time is today.

Or you know, the government could just match Chinese industry subsidies so they’re competing on level playing fields.

China’s government is using government power to invest in critical and necessary industries that benefits everyone, like renewables and EVs, driving down their costs.

The US instead spends it’s money investing in fossil fuel companies, and letting billionaires hoard it, and then complains when Chinese EVs are cheaper. You’re the richest fucking country in the world. Stop fucking whining and start using your wealth to produce competitive EVs. It’s not that fucking complicated.