I tend to think that information should be free, generally, so I would probably be fine with “OpenAI the non-profit” taking copyrighted data under fair-use, but I don’t extend that thinking to “OpenAI the for-profit company”.

Any word on Beepy V2? Migicovsky’s been pretty quiet on that lately.

Woah. A gif from “The Great Outdoors”. Now there’s something you don’t see everyday!

I guess that primarily depends on whether or not you understand the definition of coercion.

What do we call it when companies coerce government into enacting policy that’s detrimental to the general welfare of the country?

Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

• Sir Karl Raimund Popper, speaking on The Paradox Of Tolerance.

Yeah, sorry about the formatting, I didn’t feel like dealing with it when I transferred the data over from ChatGPT.

Bribery, when done intelligently, can be extremely difficult to prove in court.

Many of the accused (on both sides of the transaction) have power, connections, and reputations to uphold. I don’t think it’s too conspiratorial to suggest that the US legal system delivers judgements, let’s say, “inconsistently”, based on factors such as the aforementioned.

Same as it ever was.

Agreed. That’s why I said this in my post:

with ChatGPT in particular you need to be careful to verify the info, of course.

It’s an industry with a long and storied history of corruption, and it’s foolish to believe that that’s magically stopped somehow. It continues to happen to this day.

You can peruse more cases by using your favorite search engine or ChatGPT to search “medical examiners found guilty of taking bribes”, or similar. The information on the cases is not always easy to turn up, and with ChatGPT in particular you need to be careful to verify the info, of course.

Some ChatGPT provided examples:

1. The Bronx Funeral Home Scandal (2015)

In 2015, several funeral directors and medical examiners in the Bronx were arrested and accused of participating in a bribery scheme. Funeral directors allegedly paid bribes to officials at the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office to steer bodies to their funeral homes. In exchange for the payments, the medical examiner’s office would facilitate the release of bodies before proper investigations were completed, often in violation of legal and ethical procedures. This scandal raised concerns about the integrity of the system for handling deceased individuals and led to multiple arrests and charges. 2. Detroit Medical Examiner Corruption (2016)

In 2016, a former assistant medical examiner in Detroit, Dr. L.J. Montague, was implicated in a bribery scheme involving the alteration of autopsy results. Dr. Montague had been involved in improperly handling body evidence and allegedly accepted bribes from funeral homes to provide favorable autopsy reports. In some cases, the reports were changed to cover up the real cause of death, potentially for financial gain or to protect individuals or institutions involved in the deaths. This case drew attention to issues of corruption within the Detroit Medical Examiner’s office. 3. The Pennsylvania “Body-Snatching” Scandal (2006)

In 2006, it was revealed that a Pennsylvania medical examiner, Dr. Cyril Wecht, had been under investigation for charges related to body snatching and bribery. Dr. Wecht, who was known for performing controversial autopsies, was accused of taking bribes and improperly storing bodies for the purpose of selling them for medical research. Wecht was accused of improperly obtaining and retaining bodies for personal gain, and of offering favorable autopsy reports in exchange for compensation. Although Wecht was ultimately acquitted of the charges, the case raised concerns about the potential for bribery and unethical behavior in medical examiner practices. 4. The “Plastic Coffin” Case in New York (2000s)

In the early 2000s, a New York medical examiner, Dr. Charles Hirsch, faced public scrutiny after it was revealed that his office was involved in a widespread bribery scheme linked to the sale of bodies for scientific research. Funeral directors were allegedly paying bribes to medical examiners in exchange for facilitating the release of bodies to be sold to research organizations or anatomical schools. The bodies were often not properly identified or studied for forensic purposes, leading to fears that the system was being exploited for profit. 5. The Georgia Medical Examiner Scandal (2017)

In 2017, Georgia’s former **State Medical Examiner, Dr. Kendrick Brown, faced allegations of corruption and unethical practices. Dr. Brown was suspected of accepting bribes from law enforcement officers and other figures involved in criminal cases, in exchange for altering the results of autopsies to influence investigations. While no formal charges were filed against Brown, the case raised serious questions about the role of medical examiners in criminal justice proceedings and highlighted potential vulnerabilities to corruption.

1. The Los Angeles County Medical Examiner Scandal (2014)

In 2014, Dr. Mark Fajardo, a prominent pathologist and deputy medical examiner at the Los Angeles County Department of Coroner, was implicated in a scandal where he allegedly falsified autopsy reports. Dr. Fajardo was accused of accepting bribes from a wealthy individual to alter the cause of death in the case of an overdose. The bribery was suspected to have been linked to an attempt to cover up a drug overdose death and turn it into an accident or natural causes, making it easier for the family to collect on insurance. Dr. Fajardo was eventually investigated, but the full scope of the bribery was never completely revealed in public records. 2. The “Foul Play” Investigation in Arkansas (2012)

In 2012, Dr. Ronda Roebuck, a pathologist who worked as a deputy medical examiner in Arkansas, was involved in a case where her autopsy report was allegedly tampered with. The case involved the suspicious death of a woman, which Dr. Roebuck initially ruled a suicide. However, after the deceased’s family raised concerns and a private investigator brought attention to the possible foul play, it was suggested that Roebuck had altered her findings. The family believed that the death was a homicide and that the changes to the autopsy report were made to avoid further legal complications or investigations. Dr. Roebuck later faced scrutiny for her handling of multiple death investigations, and the Arkansas Medical Examiner’s Office faced pressure to overhaul its practices. 3. Corruption and Body-Handling Scandal in Georgia (2017)

In 2017, allegations of corruption surfaced involving the Georgia Bureau of Investigation’s Medical Examiner’s Office. Several medical examiners and other officials were suspected of receiving bribes from funeral homes or third-party organizations in exchange for allowing bodies to be released without proper investigation or certification. Funeral directors and medical institutions were believed to have offered financial incentives for the swift release of bodies, avoiding standard procedures such as autopsies in cases where foul play was suspected. This scandal highlighted gaps in accountability within state-run medical examiner systems and raised concerns about the potential for bribery and abuse. 4. The “Death Investigation” Corruption Case in Ohio (2015)

In 2015, it was reported that a Cuyahoga County, Ohio, medical examiner, Dr. Jan Gorniak, faced allegations of corruption and misconduct linked to her professional relationships with funeral homes. Several funeral directors were accused of paying bribes to medical examiner’s office staff to ensure that certain bodies were released without proper death investigations. The bribery was said to be financially motivated, with funeral homes attempting to quickly prepare bodies for burial without waiting for the completion of autopsy reports. Although investigations into the claims continued, Dr. Gorniak was forced to step down from her position as the head of the office amid mounting public pressure. 5. The “Body Broker” Scandal in Las Vegas (2009)

In 2009, Dr. Elizabeth K. Pavlik, a forensic pathologist working for the Clark County Coroner’s Office in Las Vegas, became the focus of a controversial case involving the illegal selling of bodies and body parts. Investigations revealed that several medical professionals, including Dr. Pavlik, had engaged in “body brokering” — the practice of selling body parts for profit. The scheme allegedly involved bribing medical examiners or coroners to release bodies to brokers, who would then illegally distribute body parts for research or commercial purposes. While Pavlik was not directly accused of taking bribes, the scandal brought national attention to potential corruption within the coroner’s office. She was investigated for unethical conduct, and the case shed light on the potential for fraud and bribery in medical examiner offices when financial incentives intersect with body handling. 6. The Alabama Medical Examiner’s Office Scandal (2011)

In Alabama, Dr. William A. “Bill” P. was suspected of taking bribes while working as a medical examiner in the early 2000s. Investigations into the office of the Montgomery County Medical Examiner found discrepancies in autopsy reports and irregularities in body handling. It was suspected that Dr. P. accepted bribes from various law enforcement officials and private individuals to alter cause-of-death reports in cases involving questionable deaths. There were even allegations that these altered reports were part of a larger conspiracy to cover up instances of police brutality. The case became a flashpoint for concerns over corruption in the state’s medical examiner system, but Dr. P. was never formally charged with bribery, though his actions raised serious ethical questions. 7. The “Organ Harvesting” Case in New York (2015)

A major corruption case involving a medical examiner in New York centered on illegal organ harvesting. In 2015, authorities uncovered a scheme where a medical examiner’s office worker in New York City was accused of taking bribes from an organ transplant ring. The worker allegedly provided access to bodies that were meant to be examined for forensic investigations, allowing the bodies to be sold for organ transplants. The medical examiner or coroner allegedly accepted bribes to help facilitate the sale of organs. The corruption was linked to a broader criminal syndicate involved in illegal organ trade and led to significant investigations into the role of medical professionals in such illegal practices. 8. The “Body Mishandling” Scandal in South Carolina (2004)

In South Carolina, Dr. Thomas O. Greene, a forensic pathologist, faced accusations of mishandling bodies and allegedly taking bribes from funeral home operators. The investigation started after a whistleblower reported that Dr. Greene had been

RIP, Marshall. Your novella, Manna (full text), was so impactful for me, as a 20-something at the time you first released it on your website.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/the-3-2-1-backup-strategy/

This person lost 3 months of work because they couldn’t be assed to backup their data despite having three months to do so.

Never trust an OS, or a piece of software, to protect you. Protect yourself.

Looks like someone forgot about the 3-2-1 rule. Teachable moment.

I’ll reserve judgement until the NHTSA. NCAP, and IIHS weigh in. I know the NHTSA and IIHS have declined to test due to the cost of the vehicle/testing vs low market share of the Cybertruck. As far as I understand NCAP has no plans to test since the design by default breaks EU regulations before you even consider crash testing.

I trust Tesla’s internal testing about as much as I trust Boeing’s internal testing.

Small Apartments.

Not quite as simple as checkboxes, but the ability is there to some degree!

Cities: Skylines II Found a Solution for High Rents: Get Rid of Landlords

For months, players have been complaining about the high rents in the city-building sim. This week, developer Colossal Order fixed the problem by doing something real cities can’t: removing landlords.

The rent is too damn high, even in video games. For months, players of Colossal Order’s 2023 city-building sim, Cities: Skylines II, have been battling with exorbitant housing costs. Subreddits filled with users frustrated that the cost of living was too high in their burgeoning metropolises and complained there was no way to fix it. This week, the developer finally announced a solution: tossing the game’s landlords to the curb.

“First of all, we removed the virtual landlord so a building’s upkeep is now paid equally by all renters,” the developer posted in a blog on the game’s Steam page. “Second, we changed the way rent is calculated.” Now, Colossal Order says, it will be based on a household’s income: “Even if they currently don’t have enough money in their balance to pay rent, they won’t complain and will instead spend less money on resource consumption.”

The rent problem in the city sim is almost a little too on the nose. Over the last few years real-world rents have skyrocketed—in some cases, rising faster than wages. In cities like New York, advocates and tenants alike are fighting against the fees making housing less and less affordable; in the UK, rent is almost 10 percent higher than it was a year ago. From Hawaii to Berlin the cost of living is exorbitant. Landlords aren’t always to blame, but for renters they’re often the easiest targets.

From this perspective, perhaps Cities’ simulator is too good. Prior to this week’s fix, players found themselves getting tripped up on some of the same problems government officials and city planners are facing. “For the love of god I can not fix high rent,” wrote one player in April. “Anything I do re-zone, de-zone, more jobs, less jobs, taxes high or low, wait time in game. Increased education, decreased education. City services does nothing. It seems anything I try does nothing.”

On the game’s subreddit, players have also criticised “how the game’s logic around ‘high rent’ contrasts reality,” with one player conceding that centralized locations with amenities will inevitably have higher land values. “But this game makes the assumption of a hyper-capitalist hellscape where all land is owned by speculative rent-seeking landlord classes who automatically make every effort to make people homeless over provisioning housing as it is needed,” the player continued. “In the real world, socialised housing can exist centrally.”

This is true. It exists in Vienna, which the New York Times last year dubbed “a renters’ utopia.” Except, in Vienna the landlord is the city itself (it owns about 220,000 apartments). In Cities: Skylines II, the devs just got rid of landlords completely.

The change in-game will have “a transition period as the simulation adapts to the changes,” and the developer “can’t make any guarantees” with how it will impact games with mods. Although the update aims to fix most of the problems at hand, that doesn’t mean players should never expect to see rent complaints again. When household incomes are too low to pay, tenants will be loud about it. “Only when their income is too low to be able to pay rent will they complain about ‘High Rent’ and look for cheaper housing or move out of the city.” Maybe it’s time players had a few in-game tenant groups of their own.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. I prefer nuance to oversimplification.

Did anyone actually read the whole article? These comments sorta read like the answer is no.

The researchers say that their findings prove no active collaboration between TikTok and far-right parties like the AfD but that the platform’s structure gives bad actors an opportunity to flourish. “TikTok’s built-in features such as the ‘Others Searched For’ suggestions provides a poorly moderated space where the far-right, especially the AfD, is able to take advantage,” Miazia Schüler, a researcher with AI Forensics, tells WIRED.

A better headline might have been “TikTok algorithm gamed by far-right AfD party in Germany”, but I doubt that would drive as many clicks.

For more info, check out this article: Germany’s AfD on TikTok: The political battle for the youth

They should call TechMoan or CathodeRayDude! One of them probably has the right player just sort of… lying around!

This is some top tier mental gymnastics. Holy shit, I hope you’re a troll. You’re literally on the internet discussing your plans to commit fraud. Mensa-level shit, here.

People are going to buy CP one way or another… that means you should make it and sell it to them, right?

Grow the fuck up, and maybe train a LLM on ethics, you’re going to need some education on the subject if you hope to stay out of prison.

We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less).

^{https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/pdf}