But here, your paywall free link: https://archive.is/KNECz

Here's a more substantial take on the whole thing that doesn't just blindly repeat everything without question: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/2026/04/missing-scientis... You know, what journalism is actually supposed to be like.

This BBC article https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyw9rpdl4po also has this tidbit:

> "The US Top Secret-cleared aerospace and nuclear workforce is ~700,000 people," science writer, investigator and pseudoscience debunker Mick West wrote on 16 April on his Substack.

> "Ordinary mortality over 22 months predicts ~4,000 deaths, ~70 homicides, and ~180 suicides. The list has 10 … The deaths are real. The families' grief is real. The pattern is not."

Charlie Kirk was for mass deportation. He didn't even hide it. He said it openly. How do you come off saying that these people aren't far-right or alt-right when they are unabashedly so?

https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197#issueco...

The part about filters in interviews resonated with me because of a recent experience. The place I work has been interviewing for new developers and the team lead asked me for my opinion on one of them. Overall seemed like a good candidate. But when I took a closer look at the assignment and the solution, I noticed that while technically the solution was good, the candidate had ignored a bunch of requirements outlined in the assignment.

At first I was willing to give him a chance, but when I gave it more thought, I realized that one of the biggest issues I've had with colleagues was them not reading the issue they're given, not understanding it, not fulfilling the requirements given in the issue and/or outright ignoring what's written because they independently decide they know a better solution (without consulting anybody), which turns out to be worse because of reasons which might not have been outlined in the issue, but still lead to the given requirements.

I pointed this out and felt it was a big red flag that, in a best-case scenario, this candidate was still unwilling to follow or incapable of following clear instructions. The candidate wasn't invited to the next round.

> People need to understand a few things: vague questions make the models roam endlessly “exploring” dead ends.

> If people were considerably more willing to aggressively prune their context and scope tasks well, they could get a lot more done with it

If this were the problem, people would've encountered this when they started using Claude. The problem is not that they can't get anything done. It's being able to get things done for months, but suddenly hitting rate limits way too easily and response quality being clearly degraded, so they can't get things done that used to be possible.

https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/datastructures.html#list-...

I'm also not sure that something not being intuitive or natural is necessarily a bad thing in of itself. You state it as if it's so, but you haven't demonstrated that this way of defining a list is worse. You also haven't made any attempt to understand any possible benefit, nor have you attempted any sort of analysis comparing the good and the bad aspects.

The details of how the "public pressure" came to be don't matter, because the monopoly didn't know about that. All they knew was there was a potential competitor, so they behaved according to that information. That's how it works.