Please do not do this.

Per OurWorldInData, >50% of the world lives below $10/day in 2026.

A $200/mth AI subscription costs ~66% of that.

Generation costs still exceed distribution costs by a wide margin.

Uploading costs you nothing, and it can help the poor.

How many here have read Burmese Days, had the bookworm's childhood, and are imbued with that sense of political worldliness?

Whether be it human dullards, scripted botfarms, or even maleficence -- none of them experience shame. If they do see it at all, it would be as one of many factors to boost engagement.

How is a chatbot supposed to determine when a user fools even themselves about what they have experienced?

What 'tough love' can be given to one who, having been so unreasonable throughout their lives - as to always invite scorn and retort from all humans alike - is happy to interpret engagement at all as a sign of approval?

The desire for something "new", for a Mildly Ethical product, killed off the most obvious path to success - to actually just make TikTok+AIGC, or in the present, Douyin+Seedance2.

  “What’s up Outragers, just dialing in from my NBA team’s headquarters to yell at the people whose careers I’ve just pummeled,” Unterwurzacher wrote. Atlassian fired her a few days later, saying she had “engaged in acrimonious communications and ad hominem attacks against teammates and colleagues.”

  Unterwurzacher replied, “I think it’s difficult to point out the power imbalance in a way that is not potentially described by somebody as an ad hominem attack.”

  > The code is really bad with completely uneeded parts. The LLM (Qwen 2.5 7B) has hardcoded the i9 14700KF topology, and has variables related to it never used... It's even funnier that the show hardware function always prints the same string. There are even random pip log files. Why did this slop got coverage here?

why is this posted now?

  ## Methodology and Tools

  This investigation was conducted by a human researcher who directed all research decisions, selected sources, evaluated findings, and wrote the public-facing posts. Claude Code (Anthropic's CLI tool, running Claude Opus) was used as a research assistant for:

  - Bulk data processing: parsing 4,433 IRS Schedule I grant records, 59,736 DAF recipients, 132MB of Colorado TRACER campaign finance data, and IRS Business Master File extracts covering all US tax-exempt organizations
  - Cross-referencing findings across 24 analysis files and identifying patterns that span multiple research threads
  - Drafting intermediate working documents and structured data summaries
  - Web searches against public databases (OpenSecrets, ProPublica, state lobbying portals, WHOIS/DNS, Wayback Machine)

  Claude Code did not independently choose what to investigate, decide what constitutes a finding, or determine what to publish. Every factual claim in this repository cites a primary source (IRS filing, Senate disclosure, state database, legislative record, or published reporting) that can be independently verified. The tool does not change whether Meta's LD-2 filing lists H.R. 3149, whether DCA has an EIN, or whether Stefanski admitted tech funding under oath. The records exist or they don't.

  If you want to verify any finding, the source URLs and database identifiers are provided throughout. Start with the primary records, not with this repository.

I do not see any link or source for the data. I assume it is to remain closed, if it exists.