https://www.opb.org/article/2025/03/29/portland-general-elec...

https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/chestnut-grove-...

they have such an obscene amount of money that no fine would ever matter to them. Jail time would do the trick though. Billionaires and trillionaires can't buy days of their life back.

A better question would be how are you being screwed over if you never bother to try to stop companies from collecting as much data as they possibly can about your private life? It can cost you a job offer, or cause you to pay more than your neighbor for the same products/services. It can get your data leaked, or sold to scammers. Companies use the data they collect on you for things as trivial as deciding how long to you leave you on hold. The more data they have on you, the easier it becomes for them to use it against you.

Feel free to give companies every bit of personal data they want from you. They'll be thrilled to use that information at any time and in any way they think it will benefit them. Until we have laws against surveillance capitalism the only person looking out for your interests is you, but only if you can be bothered. It'll sure help companies take advantage of you if you decide it's not worth trying.

That's a very early 2000s view of the issue. Ads are not what all the surveillance is for, it's just the publicly acceptable excuse for tracking you that companies love to use because nobody cares which ad they get shown. Being able to build a profile of which websites you visit can provide a ton of information about you and that data is increasingly being used offline. It stopped being about ads ages ago and now what you do online can impact your next job offer, what prices you pay, which policies companies apply to you, etc.

You can never limit all data collection. Going to the store and paying in cash will still have you tracked by Flock cameras. The point is just to limit what you can, where you can. Every scrap of data collected about you is going to eventually be used against you later by somebody. No point in giving them anymore ammo than you have to.

That's basically the ideal. It's become obvious that it's impossible to try to be identical. Web browsers are too leaky, and something will out you. You really don't want to try to blend in the "typical" users because none of them use ad blockers.

It doesn't matter if it looks wrong as long as it looks differently wrong over time. Don't bother trying to blend in with the crowd because you can't ever expect to catch everything that can be used to fingerprint you. New techniques come out all the time. You can block a lot of information from even being collected. Limit what data you send at all, randomize what's left, change IP frequently (VPN) and you should be fine.

> Claude Haiku 4.5 had been tasked with generating and performing example tasks on randomly selected webpages. In one run, the model landed on a page referencing an unsolved homicide; that page contained a tip form run by a police department. Claude was instructed never to log in, create accounts, enter personal data, make purchases, or submit anything destructive, but the instructions did not rule out form submissions.

Without more information this looks much less like an AI problem and more like yet another example of incompetent or malicious internal tests. Many people are using Claude. There are no other reports of police stations getting fake reports from AI.

If someone reports a bug to you and says that they used AI to find it, then what are the options? If you fix the bug you get the tainted status because you "accepted the use of AI for finding bugs or security issues" so what's the alternative? Leaving the bug in your code? Patch it, but also send an angry reply to the person who submitted it telling them to never do that again? How does that help your project?

Functionally, this just makes the "Condones LLM Ingestion" category entirely useless. That still leaves tags like "Vibecoded" or "Gen AI 'Art'" tags useful, but it pretty much guarantees that people will be put off and dismissive of the entire effort. Extremism to the point of absurdity only hurts their cause.

Both meanings look like they're valid uses of the term. The "to cause to take action", "to cause someone to behave" and "to incite/actuate/propel" definitions focus on what initiated an action/behavior, while most of the definitions I found focus on just having or providing a reason/incentive/desire/enthusiasm/encouragement for an action which applies even if that action never actually materializes.

    to give (someone) a reason for doing something
    to be a reason for something
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/motivate

    To provide with an incentive or a reason for doing something; impel: 
    To cause to be enthusiastic
    to give incentive to
    to provide with a motive or motives; incite; impel. 
    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/motivate

    To provide someone with an incentive to do something; to encourage; to actuate. 
    To animate; to propel; to cause to take action. 
    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/motivate

    to cause someone to behave in a particular way: 
    to make someone want to do something well: 
    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/motivate

"We will respond against the ICC and its personnel to the extent permitted by U.S. law. We will ban its judges and prosecutors from entering the United States. We will sanction their funds in the U.S. financial system, and we will prosecute them in the U.S. criminal system. We will do the same for any company or state that assists an ICC investigation of Americans." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45474864

As for the ICC turning a blind eye to the crimes of the US, its track record speaks for itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_committed_by_the_Un...

Giving one party a free pass to commit crimes while convicting other parties is corrupt, even if all the people who did get convicted deserved it.

If your justice system, as a matter of policy, refused to ever arrest any while brazilians would you say it was still corrupt even if every black/brown brazilian they convicted was truly guilty and fairly sentenced? It's corrupt. If their hands truly are completely tied because of credible threats against them by the US then the US is the source of their corruption, but it's still corrupt.

The amount of people who are still in that immovable category is what I find most horrifying. I'm not sure what the fix for that is. Less lead in the water? Better education?

The point of this "article" is that they can break up the sugar ingredients so that it's possible for no single source of sugar to be more than the amount of strawberries, but to still have more sugars than strawberries and yet put strawberries first. I'm not saying that this particular jelly example does that, only that the rules would allow for it.

Sugar content doesn't tell you anything about berry content. It's not unreasonable for someone to want look at the list of ingredients and know if what they are buying is mostly fruit or mostly HFCS. Or even just mostly sugars that didn't come from the berries.