I use a Fedora variant and that’s about how high my socks are right now. Seems accurate.

Had to check the date on the article because this is not the first woman in scrubs on her way to work being yanked out of a car while telling ICE that she is a citizen.

We live in a dystopian hell and for some reason we keep acting like it’s all fine.

Rumors have been going around that Hegseth was gonna get fired early next year anyway.

Apparently Trump promised not to fire any cabinet members for a year bc he had such turmoil amongst the turnover during his first term.

Sorry for the CNN article. I actually read a story about this back in Sept but I can’t remember where and CNN was the first I could find referencing the same idea.

At the time I read about, it was over Signalgate and the embarrassing Trump at the Fat Generals Speech.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/21/politics/trump-cabinet-kristi-noem-chris-wright

Yeah! I saw reporting on this months ago.

What I appreciated about this article was the detail about how they tried to hide it.

Also I love GN. Thanks for sharing!

That’s interesting. I’ll need to look it up.

I never really watched LTT even before the controversy. The story about the woman who moved to Canada to work there then got fucked over kinda turned me off so I started avoiding them. Something about it just felt icky but maybe I’m wrong about that.

I tried watching MKBHD but something about him feels off too.

Maybe I’m the problem.

C-Suite execs are probably the one thing LLMs could actually replace and save the company more money than layoffs, but it’ll never happen.

Companies aren’t democracies. They are monarchies with the illusion of democracy via shareholders.

It’s the confusion between and LLM and AI.

LLMs are just algorithms that understand language. They don’t really think for themselves. They just search the database of stolen ideas and try to apply it.

But we all use those words interchangeably they basically mean the same thing.

Hell yeah. Those people are smart. I hope they get super rich on fixing AI nonsense.

Did we just become best friends?

I hope it works like that.

Frenchman Joseph-Ignace Guillotin solved this problem in the 18th century.

I love Ed. He is the personification of my emotions.

Don’t say AI found it, just an algorithm caught it.

Could have been as simple as a spreadsheet highlighting cells with a ratio that was below a threshold.

Article didn’t say what software was used.

Edit: I meant “didn’t say”. Autocorrect has been really going after me lately.

The article said it was an algorithm that detected it, not AI.

Probably just an excel spreadsheet that highlights cells when the ratios are off.

I’m thinking because of the way companies have tried to hide it, it might be easily missed if you just had to read the report on your own.

Doesn’t matter if they can replace coders. If CEOs think it can, it will.

And now, it’s good enough to look like it works so the CEO can just push the problem down the road and get an instant stock inflation

Stephen Miller is my #1 enemy. He keeps ignoring my requests for a fist fight over who gets to stay here and who gets to move to Venezuela.

Also https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/justice-department-quietly-replaced-identical-trump-signatures-on-recent-pardons

Do they need Kushner for that? They done a pretty good job funneling money to Him over the last 8 years.

And the rest is Jared Kushner. Enjoy that shit sandwich.

EA was already shit, but somehow they found bread made from shit and built a whole sandwich.

I don’t think he’s the real problem. It’s everyone around him and he just signs off on anything they put in front of him.

Human Auto Pen.

This headline is a bit misleading. The article also says that only 2/3 of the errors GPT found were verified errors (according to the author).

• Overall, ChatGPT identified 56 supposed errors in these 31 featured articles.

• I confirmed 38 of these (i.e. 68%) as valid errors in my assessment. Implemented corrections for 35 of these, and Agreed with 3 additional ones without yet implementing a correction myself. Disagreed with 13 of the alleged errors (23%).

• I rated 4 as** Inconclusive** (7%), and one as  Not Applicable (in the sense that ChatGPT’s observation appeared factually correct but would only have implied an error in case that part of the article was intended in a particular way, a possibility that the ChatGPT response had acknowledged explicitly).