> We used surveys of 4,266 members of these parties to learn more about their personalities – including those traits associated with the dark triad.

> Of course, in psychiatry it’s considered unethical to diagnose someone with a personality disorder without meeting them – and we are most definitely not psychiatrists.

And yet despite this, the author went ahead and started diagnosing people anyway, as having "dark triad" traits, including psychopathy, despite the fact that psychopathy CANNOT be diagnosed from a self-report survey (for obvious reasons) and has to be diagnosed by an external observer.

What is the point of this whole article other than to label an entire group of people as bad on the back of laughably weak reasoning and evidence?

Why does this article read like it's AI-generated?

Lots of em dashes.

“Read that clause again”

“That’s the whole thing in one sentence”

“Here’s why that breaks”

“Same shape, exactly”

“Here’s the cruel part”

“But look at the shape of it”

Here's the honest truth: it's AI-generated.

80% of this is AI-prose-tropes. The tropes are load bearing.

(Any other ai-isms I can blast in? Probably)

It's not only AI that uses em-dashes, but AI only seems to use em-dashes. And there's an ellipsis ascii char in there too (not 3 periods in sequence, a single ellipsis char), somewhat of another AI tell.

phones let you type … effortlessly

Yeah, and it's alt+k on my default keyboard layout on debian… I think some punctuation is available on macos as well — so perhaps it's a windows-ism that «only AI can use punctuation».

Why do the immediate complaints that something is AI generated feel like they're AI generated?

I usually don't complain about stuff being AI generated. But in this case, regardless of HOW it was written/generated, it reads exactly like claudese and frankly I am so exhausted of reading that particular voice that I made it half way through this article before I just couldn't do it anymore. I really don't care if AI was used, I care that it is readable. And frankly, it isn't.

"That particular voice".

Yeah. Different authors should have different voices. Having them all sound the same is like having all your food taste the same. It makes you want to throw up after a while.

I think you missed the point, "That particular voice" - is the claude vomit that I have to consume everyday and it makes me shudder every time I see it.

No, I don't think I did.

That voice grates on you. It grates on all of us. But it would grate on us less if we didn't hear it all the time - if it wasn't half of the words coming at us.

Dibes said, "I am so exhausted of reading that particular voice that I made it half way through this article before I just couldn't do it anymore." I think what I said is exactly to his point.

Because I don't care what a machine "thinks" I care what a real human thinks. We are losing the internet's remaining culture by consuming this type of content.

To restate what I put elsewhere, I genuinely don't think I care much for how it was written. The problem is that it felt exhausting to read and was chock full of the same claudese voice that makes claude so infuriatingly exhausting to read. I gave it a try and gave up halfway through. If it was AI generated but was a good read that conveyed a central point/theme, I wouldn't be complaining. This at least is trying to argue a single point, but it does so in what feels like at least 10x the word count.

The answer to your question is very simple.

> America getting potentially balanced by China and Europe in the Americas

I can't figure out a way to parse this sentence that makes sense. Are you saying that "Europe" will "balance" the USA in the Americas? As in, European influence will counteract US influence in the Americas?

Would assume it's in reference to things like the EU offering associate membership to Canada, or China's trade deals with Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru, etc.

> European influence will counteract US influence in the Americas?

Yes. If you’re Canada or Mexico or frankly anyone else in the Americas, you probably don’t want all your weapons systems to be dependant on American supply chains. And then if you think about it, you probably don’t want all your energy imports dependent on Washington’s noblesse. Et cetera.

American exceptionalism was built on the trust the world put in us getting so unilaterally powerful without being balanced.

If someone is doing something as a job... then surely they are, by definition, doing it for money? Otherwise, if they were doing it for fun, as a hobby, then we would call them hobbyists?

But of all the possible available jobs and careers, you choose the one that you enjoy, right?

How would you get different behavior when you have completely decompiled the original binary and recompiled it to wasm? Shouldn't the result have identical behavior?

How useful is this decompiled source code? I had a look and most of the code looks like this:

bool fn_80173510(void) { u16* temp_r31 = gmMainLib_8015EDA4(); bool var_r30 = true; int i;

    if (gmMainLib_8015EDC8()->x5 == 0) {
        for (i = 0; i < 11; i++) {
            if (i != 6 && i != 7 && i != 8 && i != 9 && i != 10 &&
                !(*temp_r31 & (1LL << i)))
            {
                var_r30 = false;
                break;
            }
        }
        if (var_r30 != 0) {
            gmMainLib_8015EDC8()->x5 = true;
        }
    }
    return gmMainLib_8015EDC8()->x5;
}

My understanding is that the source code itself is not the "goal" as much as a way to recompile the game for other architectures instead of having to use emulation to play the game. Also for modders who want to alter things at a low level (performantly).

Over time, as needed and where it makes the most sense, I could imagine that _rough_ source being cleaned up (same logic, but real names/comments added) so that it's easier to follow.

Getting code to re-compile byte-for-byte into the original game is the first step to being able to clean up that code to be human-readable.

As LLMs make formal verification cheaper (they can generate proofs that can then be automatically checked) many of the verifiable components of software systems, such as compilers and microkernels, will be verified. I suppose the issue is that the critical bugs are rarely in compilers and microkernels, but more often in applications, such as web browsers, which are more difficult to formally verify.

Math in general is something that you don't need to know until you need to know it, the problem with "just in time" learning is that if you don't already know it then you won't even be able to know when it's needed and which specific bits of math you need to learn for the specific situation you find yourself in.

If you don't know math, you often won't be able to even realize when math is needed.

There's a Steve Yegge quote about this:

> You'll gradually realize that your math deficiencies aren't just something that you might need to beef up on if you ever "need to"; you'll see that virtually every problem space has a mathematical modeling component that you were blissfully unaware of until Done, and Gets Things Smart gal points it out to you and says, "There's an infinitely smarter approach, which by the way I implemented over the weekend." You stare slack-jawed for a little while, and then she says: "Here's a ball. Why don't you go bounce it?"

Yeah, that's true, and I've been in that situation. Unfortunately the math I was missing was not calculus or anything I had exposure to in school, or any actual experience in practical application. You can't know everything.

Peer reputation and self policing works in a system where no money is at stake.

In the old days scientific research was only done by self-funded rich people with tons of money and free time.

Nowadays science is mostly done by people whose income and food depends on getting grants.

When your career and income are at stake, why would you take the risk of opposing Dan Ariely? Only someone who was already rich could do that.

>Peer reputation and self policing works in a system where no money is at stake.

It works in systems where money is at stake too. You need a high trust, conscientous society. Doesn't mean that having one solves the issue entirely. The ocassional bad apple will fraud there too, but it wont be rampant enough to be a systemic problem.

>When your career and income are at stake, why would you take the risk of opposing Dan Ariely? Only someone who was already rich could do that.

You don't need independently wealthy scientists to expose fraud.

You just need an environment where if regular salary dependent scientists expose fraud, they're not punished for it.

If you don't have that, sure, then you need independently wealthy scientists to dare.

Lightsail does not offer five nines.

Lightsail also does not offer any form of virtual serial console to access a VM where you've accidentally broken networking or ssh, when even the crappiest lowendbox-tier VM provider generally does. The only way to 'recover' a lightsail VM that's in that state is to export the storage device to full amazon services starting from a $25/mo VM.

Neither does GitHub, and for whatever reason everyone and their cousin uses it still. :)

everyone uses github because everyone uses github. it's relying strictly on social effect right now.

Well yeah, obviously. I think the point was that uptime is not the only concern, and that a service sufficiently attractive in other ways can get people to overlook a lack of reliability.

Uptime is overrated.