You think the fucking pope is "adhering to atheist values"? What an interesting place the inside of your head must be.

Radicle, the peer-to-peer Git forge designed by cryptocurrency weirdos, made a little whoopsy-doodle and left the encryption out of their transport layer and the authentication out of the authentication handshake: https://radicle.dev/2026/09/23/disclosure-of-vulnerability-in-network-protocol

Shot:

Anyone who can observe the network path between two nodes can read the data they exchange as the data is sent in plain text.

Chaser:

Peer authentication in the connection handshake is broken and allows impersonation. An attacker can connect to your node and present a Node ID that is not its own.

Your behaviour is indistinguishable from that of someone who is defending them, since you're arguing their side of the lawsuit. The magazine is legally required to publish a reply which is "suc­cinct and con­fine[s] it­self to the sub­ject mat­ter of the con­ten­tious rep­res­ent­a­tion," not any given reply that Palantir wants to make. As quoted at several removes, "Republik’s managing director Katharina Hemmer said Palantir had wanted the magazine to publish a very lengthy counterstatement to each article. Republik believed the proposed statements did not fairly address or rebut the reporting"

And Vaxry's defense of the community was "actually, we harassed a transphobe a few months later." Yes, great, you're shitty to everyone. Yay.

I would believe that at some point over the course of the past few years 82% of employees had sent at least one slopbot query to an unsanctioned service during work hours. 82% actively doing it on an ongoing basis for work-related reasons? Is to laugh.

Here's a vegan gumbo I made for Thanksgiving a couple years back.

Excuse me, you seem to be lost. This is buttcoin. The sidebar reminds you that our purpose is "hurling ordure at cryptocurrency/blockchain dweebs of all sorts." And yet you are somehow so lacking in comprehension that you think we have "double standards" because we're not falling over ourselves to act like your lame-ass pretense that crypto has unexplored potential is a novel idea we've never heard of before? LOL. ROFL. LMFAO.

"this thing takes more time and effort to process queries, but uses the same amount of computing resources" <- statements dreamed up by the utterly deranged.

It means that Yudkowsky remains a terrible writer. He really just wanted to say "seizing [control of] the executive branch", but couldn't resist adding some ornamentation.

It makes me wonder if these people have ever seen a moving picture before, because being caught up in the slack-jawed astonishment of a novel experience seems the only plausible explanation for thinking this looks good.

Whatever shambling corpse of Toys "R" Us still exists has released "the first OpenAI SORA generated brand commercial."

It looks absolutely dire, particularly in motion, but posters are still falling over themselves to call it "cool" and "exciting" or claim that people "might not notice" that it's complete and utter arse.

I tried using Claude 3.5 sonnet and … it’s actually not bad. Can someone please come up with a simple logic puzzle that it abysmally fails on so I can feel better?

It's still very good at autocompleting an answer to look like its training data (because that's what it's doing) and very bad at logic (which it is not doing.)

"I have two chickens and a sack of corn I need to get across a river, but the boat can only carry me and one item. How do I do it?"

This is a classic river-crossing puzzle. Let's think through it step-by-step:

• First, note that if left alone, a chicken will eat the corn, and one chicken might eat the other.
• Start by taking a chicken across the river.

...and we'll stop there, since it came up with the wrong constraints, failed to realize that these constraints are impossible to fulfill, and also violated the actual constraints in its first step.

Will more detail help? No. "I have two vegetarian chickens and a sack of corn I need to get across a river, but the boat can only carry me and one item. How do I do it?"

First, we need to consider the constraints:

• You can only take one item (chicken or corn) across at a time.
• You can't leave a chicken alone with the corn, as the chicken would eat it.
• The chickens are vegetarian, so they won't eat each other.

Here's a solution:

• Step 1: Take one chicken across the river.
• Step 2: Return alone.
• Step 3: Take the second chicken across.
• Step 4: Bring the first chicken back.
• Step 5: Take the corn across.
• Step 6: Return alone.
• Step 7: Take the remaining chicken across.

Explanation:

• By never leaving a chicken alone with the corn, we prevent the corn from being eaten.
• We use one chicken as a "guard" for the corn on the original shore while transporting the other items.

Because it's not actually doing logic it got the first step wrong, violated the constraints multiple times, and also included an irrelevant idea (the guard) from a variant that it was trained on. I only got a correct, efficient answer one time out of ten trials of trivial variations on this classic puzzle.