Goertzel, you say? That makes this part of the statement interesting:
Nobody at SIAI noticed the name, and since it wasn’t a donation aimed at SIAI itself, we did not run major-donor relations about it.
Goertzel specifically asked for funds first, $2k for video editing and personally thanked Epstein for the 50k too
Apparently he’s a Quaker, so maybe that’s how the euthanasia stance can pass muster. But Quakerism might also make even less sense with his views on race? I don’t know enough about the reality of Quakerism to say.
Also, looks like Harris also deliberately side-stepped the dinner bait but I don’t know how much of that was because of Chomsky’s presence. Epstein tried again a year later without the Chomsky attendee name-drop, but Harris might have just not replied.
At least there are no surprises with Dawkins, even his sleazy friend Brockman seemingly finds him tiring
Glib jibes aside, I haven’t been able to bring myself to look at many of the docs that aren’t just quasi-celeb emails, the few I did see were far too much for me. I’m horrified at nearly everyone from all ideological stances on a number of different levels I never considered. I can only hope the remaining victims someday are able to find some peace, and some kind of huge systemic reform can come from this. What a vile world we live in.
So Krauss tried to introduce Joe Rogan to Epstein
But Rogan may have been unwilling to do so
How is it Joe Rogan is (possibly) the smartest person in this situation?
Risk and limitations: the study is inherently risky. While it is highly likely that STIs that alter female sexual behavior exist in the wider mammalian order, whether or not they current infect humans remains unclear. Challenges exist in successfully culturing newly identified STIs and adapting microbes to standardized lab models for testing. Finally, any new STIs will be relatively easy to test for efficacy in animals but costly and otherwise challenging to test in humans, and it is possible that success in animal models will not translate into human efficacy. Risks can be mitigated by simultaneously conducting animal and human studies, increasing the probability of identifying at least a single mammalian agent that modifies female sexual behavior.
Fucking terrifying.
I’m sure many of them are somewhat accidental ladder climbers, but looking at some of the names in the list:
These were just the ones I looked at out of curiosity for what they were up to around 2018-2019. There’s clearly the TESCREAL theme across the list, but it strikes me that there’s also a lot of very active PR/promotion effort across the board. Award nominations don’t exactly spontaneously generate from impartial awe-struck onlookers, and media book reviews aren’t chosen based on literary merit.
The inclusion of Mac especially is what made me think this might just be a slightly wider list of candidates a grotesque parasite would want to ingratiate themselves with by inviting them give private lectures - he doesn’t strike me as a great fit otherwise.
That was my take as well. It’s basically anyone in academia/tech who had a PR machine working for them at the time, and a couple of weird extras.
How Gromov only landed the underwhelming summary of “American” is interesting, I assume the list copy paste was cut short and the next word was “mathematician”.
If these people did all end up in the same location it’s probably safe to assume it was a private and unpublicized event. Some of them seem to have been in and around silicon valley at the time, so maybe one of the tech fake charity “foundation” events.
Who needs pure AI model collapse when you can have journalists give it a more human touch? I caught this snippet from the Australian ABC about the latest Epstein files drop
The Google AI summary does indeed highlight Boris Nikolić the fashion designer if you search for only that name. But I’m assuming this journalist was using ChatGPT, because if you see the Google summary, it very prominently lists his death in 2008. And it’s surprisingly correct! A successful scraping of Wikipedia by Gemini, amazing.
But the Epstein email was sent in 2016.
Dors the journalist perhaps think it more likely is the Boris Nikolić who is the biotech VC, former advisor for Bill Gates and named in Epstein’s will as the “successor executor”? Info literally all in the third Google result, even in the woeful state of modern Google. Pushed past the fold by the AI feature about the wrong guy, but not exactly buried enough for a journalist to have any excuse.
Out of curiosity, what sort of customizations are you doing with it? I’m just a bit surprised that docker rebuild or a non-trivial fork would be needed, so I’m assuming they’re pretty big changes.
I’m not a spice merchant, and most exploits rarely involve a single step. This screenshot is just a system design red flag.
You’re free to examine the repo yourself and find your own spice, my 5 min look tells me that piefed needs to expend a significant amount of effort on infosec to maintain user trust in the longer term.
As others have pointed out, it does still require (with some caveats about the infra setup) the user to be an admin. But if someone manages to get in to the interface, or another person is granted admin access who shouldn’t have been, it makes it more risky than it needs to be. It also for me is a design choice that indicates other parts of the system should be carefully examined for how they’re handling and sanitizing input.
Any webserver you browse is possibly capable of ACE depending on the implementation. When it starts to hold user data is when that starts to be a big concern. The more points of entry, the more that needs to be secured.
I don’t have any experience with piefed admin, or any opinion on piefed itself, just too many years of web admin experience. And as soon as I see intentionally made doors that allow code input, I start to worry about how much experience the devs who made it have with web admin.
Well, just copy and pasted rather than written. I would have hoped that infra read-level permission, infra write-level permission and admin interface permissions were all separate to begin with, even if the person who spun up the instance obviously has all three.
You do need a level of trust in an admin, of course, but wide open text boxes for putting in code are a questionable system design choice, in my opinion. It adds an extra point of possible entry that then relies on the security of the overall admin interface instead of limiting it to what should require highest level infra admin permissions to access. And if it is something that would be limited to someone who has those, then what is the actual utility of having a textarea for it in the first place?
I get that many people are concerned about is scoring systems, but it seems a lot more worrying to me that it allows arbitrary code execution.
Excellent job on taking care of Lester. I can tell he’s in caring hands and I hope you both have many wonderful (and URTI-free, fingers crossed for that) years together.
I’d say never feel silly about a vet visit. Even if why you booked it is no longer an issue (which is definitely something that can and does happen for any pet owner), you can always use the time to pick their brains, learn new things and build a good relationship with them.
But… Where are 102 and 103 then? Are they on a separate street?
Oh wait I get it now. It’s a weird choice but ok. Where I live we just subdivide by adding letters. E.g 20 subdivide and becomes 20 and 20A.
That depends on if you consider the “inferior” to be human, if they’re even still alive after the eugenics part.
In retrospect the word quarterlies is what I should have chosen for accuracy, but I’m glad I didn’t purely because I wouldn’t have then had your vivid hog simile.
Amazon’s latest round of 16k layoffs for AWS was called “Project Dawn” internally, and the public line is that the layoffs are because of increased AI use. AI has become useful, but as a way to conceal business failure. They’re not cutting jobs because their financials are in the shitter, oh no, it’s because they’re just too amazing at being efficient. So efficient they sent the corporate fake condolences email before informing the people they’re firing, referencing a blog post they hadn’t yet published.
It’s Schrodinger’s Success. You can neither prove nor disprove the effects of AI on the decision, or if the layoffs are an indication of good management or fundamental mismanagement. And the media buys into it with headlines like “Amazon axes 16,000 jobs as it pushes AI and efficiency” that are distinctly ambivalent on how 16k people could possibly have been redundant in a tech company that’s supposed to be a beacon of automation.
Now I’m curious what replacing the word “girl” with “boy” in the same prompt would return. Would they also be hypersexualized from the inclusion of “stockings” and “braids” which can just as easily be fetish categories as innocuous physical descriptions, or is it mostly the female dataset that puts it into the porn realm?
Actually, just because the document is not awesomely formatted, and because mentioning the thanking part undersells the contradiction: