This is the most tone deaf answer I've read in quite a while. Learning to code, and everything you listed isn't available or possible by most people in a timely manner.

The question was what can be done now, by novice people. Not by people who must first acquire years of tech knowledge.

It's not reinforcing your point to say that. Not everyone can do it. And it shouldn't preclude them from being safe.

This is equivalent to pointing at some ivory tower of safety and say: "git gud."

Not anymore.

Proliferation is also about vaccination and HIV prevention, etc. USAID et al. are among the most important programs in development and prevention worldwide. This is a tragedy chosen by a majority of Americans because what goes around comes around. COVID showed again that pandemics don't stop at borders.

Some sets of circumstances don't favor score maximization on such tests, whereas being in a high income family favors prior access to education that help get those scores for instance. Ergo you'd not solve a better access to education that way.

Similarly, means testing for those slots also has negatives incentives. It's a hard issue to solve.

Peter Watts is better known for writing Blindsight, which I consider the best sci-fi novel of the past 20 years. I highly recommend it.

The lack of "about" page or equivalent always make me squint. Some websites may require their maintainers to value anonymity, but it's not a given.

Focusing on international interference by one state does not reduce the blame that can be thrown at another. There's no limited reserve of blame that requires to be cleverly distributed. The undemocratic influence over public institutions by lobbies, like Qatar's (see Qatargate in Europe) or Israeli-linked ones alike and many more, are the death of our societies.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.09457 [2] https://poison-llm.github.io/

If companies act maliciously to contort around the law and force users back to making uninformed choices, it is the companies' fault and not the law's. Companies could have followed the interpretation of the law unobstrusively. But they didn't.

Invoking "reality," semanticking a position, do not make Graham's position justified. Neither does it make the blog wrong.

The actual outcome is that they do want to track, and use adversarial patterns and malicious compliance to twist your arm and "force consent."

Paul Graham is still wrong.

It's expected that E-ink would demolish video quality, but does it has an incidence on sound if you want to listen to a video on the metro line?