Personally, I don't make the distinction between foreign and domestically produced routers in America. In fact, I trust foreign produced routers more because the likelihood that they can act upon their surveillance is significantly lower than the current American regime's oppressive and malicious tactics. Therefore, open source routers provides enough transparency to effectively eliminate spyware threats from all angles while being compliant.

I'm especially excited about the Banana Pi because of the transparency and potential of modular upgrades. Whenever there's a network issue, I have to consider whether the manufacturer (American or not) is doing something nefarious. With a Pi based router, I have much more peace of mind with network debugging issues.

It's only when I jump back into the ads management page where I'm able to get a better idea. Even then, the specific trackers are hidden behind a variety of menu items that can change every time. This post made me realize that I need a better strategy as things are getting ridiculous with ads.

I used to be someone who didn't use ad blockers because some of them are botnets. It's just not the same anymore, as I would trust the botnets with my data over the advertisers.

It seems like anyone with even a cursory role can access this information and abuse it. It's ridiculous that this is happening. I think a sizable number of people on Hacker News actually support these systems and if you're one of them, please keep yourself safe.

I think the reliability problem is very bad. It's not just that the US government is encouraging fraud, it's also that the average American hates AI and data science. Usually, the public would prefer reliable data, but in this case, Americans seem to prefer corruption just to spite the AI.

We're certainly living in a post-truth country. By vilifying higher education, the assumption that Americans can interpret data is challenging. Therefore, Americans are consuming biased information in their online bubbles because their media is comfortable with fraudulent data.

A concrete example of what happens whenUS economic data becomes unreliable is employment numbers. At the end of 2025, the government couldn't produce any data because of the government shutdown. Most quants and analysts utilized ADP numbers instead. A few years ago, the ADP payroll numbers and the projections by the government were perceived as aligned. This is no longer the case, and most traders rely more on ADP indicators for things like the unemployment rate.

Speculating on what other data is fraudulent, I suspect that real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will become meaningless. It was supposed to be an indicator for economic wellbeing but now best describes wealth inequality. Nominal GDP is a slightly better measure because it adjusts for things like inflation but it's based on government produced data.

Lastly, there is widespread fraud in climate data in order to deny climate change. The data feeds into economic models and affects property values and insurance rates. I have personally received gag orders from government agencies from both the US and Europe for publishing environmental data.

The brain rot from the author couldn't even think of "unit test".

The article could have been written from a very different perspective. Instead, the "journalists" likely interviewed a few insiders from Big Tech and generalized. They don't get it. They never will.

Before the advent of ChatGPT, maybe 2 in 100 people could code. I was actually hoping AI would increase programming literacy but it didn't, it became even more rare. Many journalists could have come at it from this perspective, but instead painted doom and gloom for coders and computer programming.

The New York Times should look in the mirror. With the advent of the iPad, most experts agreed that they would go out of business because a majority of their revenue came from print media. Look what happened.

Understand this, most professional software and IT engineers hate coding. It was a flex to say you no longer code professionally before ChatGPT. It's still a flex now. But it's corrupt journalism when there is a clear conflict of interest because the NYT is suing the hell out of AI companies.

My word of caution is if you do have access to these systems or a shared password, tread very carefully.

I'm hoping for a framework that expands upon Behavior Driven Development (BDD) or a similar project-management concept. Here's a promising example that is ripe for an Agentic AI implementation, https://behave.readthedocs.io/en/stable/philosophy/#the-gher...

I think we are overwhelmingly utilizing negative reinforcement for AI generated content; where there are consequences for engaging in this behavior. On the other hand, positive reinforcement would encourage authenticity and greater human content. The reality of the situation is that AI generated content won't go away and it's become a game of who can hide their artificial content the best. Thus, I believe that positive reinforcement is the solution.

I think we must instead encourage human created content instead of policing AI generation. There are so many rules to follow already that by the time I create the content, I've gone through enough if/then logic that it feels like AI anyway.