that would be like *checks math* less than a human aware of root CA? Can't be right.

anyway, people living in russia are statistically more aware. There was a campaign after new root CA was issued. It was on a news, on the official channels, in the mail and on the posters. A lot of government sites begged to install them whenever you visited.

It's not like they released it silently.

Russian government issued their new root certificate years ago.

Nobody trusted it enough to request a certificate from them or install it on their computers. Including almost all of the russian residents.

If Let's Encrypt enforces the rules, as written in pdf, a lot of people would lose a choice.

Frankly, even publishing a statement like that would make the scales of trust tip for some.

Not true, we have a lot of data about using nicotine as pesticide. And quite a lot about oral toxicity. Pharma had nicotine sprays and tablets tasted for decades. Wouldn't be allowed on european market otherwise.

>> A lot of the risks people warn about wrt nicotine (dopamine spikes)

you misunderstand. The dopamine from coffee is purely from a personal enjoyment, while nicotine binds directly into nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in the brain. It doesn't matter how it enters the blood, it will alter neurotransmitter activity.

That's why сytisine is so good for battling a nicotine addiction — it binds the same receptors and prevents the nicotine binding. It's like swapping one addiction for another, except nicotine stays in your system for a week while сytisine leaves quickly (5h).

So, you see, it's not "the same" as coffee, it's more like taking longlasting antianixiety or ADHD meds recreationally.

When you need meds like that, altering your brain chemistry is a desirable outcome, of course. I'm not against drugs overall.

But drugs like that are prescription only for a reason.

>> some of it suggests nicotine could be helpful for ADHD

some of what I've read also suggests that nicotine could be helpful for schizophrenia. But given that we know what mechanism it targets, I fully believe we can find an alternative formula that wouldn't be so toxic to humans.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the name of the magazine — and the fact that it is a magazine — matters very much when we are talking about something that is "entering public life".

If the author had read this little tidbit on a "daily dune fan blogpost", he wouldn't have any ground to claim that butlerian jihad is a part of relevant political vocabulary.

Not gut health specifically, but we run the tests on taking nicotine orally for nicotine sprays. It's definitely makes ulcers more likely to happen in short term usage.

What's even worse, it definitely fucks up your neuromodulators, which is very bad for children and young adults. That's a well known fact, it's why it's addictive, and that's why quitting it will make you have very bad mood swings.

The body adjusts to the dopamine spikes by lowering dopamine, and if it happens during brain development, it's just not good. Any addiction during brain development is not good, but especially a chemical one. Kids need to learn what their emotions are and how to control them before they can control them by chewing. Kids usually do it through teens and up to early adulthood.

That would be half a trillion[1] redirected to regular people just from Google Ads.

[1] snatched my number from here: https://pixis.ai/blog/2025-google-advertising-benchmarks-for...

If an algorithm can't be explained that way, I propose that it's a shit algorithm that shouldn't be used in production in places where its directly blocks people actions

And the more they DDOS small websites — instead of respectfully scraping once — the more realistic my conspiracy theory looks.

I'm not saying it's AI. But founder build a platform around this issue and then discovered that this issue is hard?

If it's not an AI-slop, it still shows a sloppy reasoning.

He claims anyone can build what he build, and furthermore that he doesn't know how to actually solve the outreach problem. So essentially he did nothing and achieved nothing and instead only moving on, he decides to double down.

Site menu doesn't work, half of pages are missing, I tried to learn what his plans are moving forward, and couldn't find anything.

Even with AI, if you want to sell people on the idea that you personally can make a site, you should present a site that works.

If you claim that there is a solution, you should present an evidence.

It's not enough to say "everyone can do it with AI". I wouldn't trust a site like that not to leak my info.

Even if it's not AI, it still sloppy. I understand if it was a blog rant, but it's not.

It's not a technical problem, but a societal one. We stopped pushing out sellouts, because we knew that life was unaffordable and we wanted people we admire to be able to afford it.

10 years passed, and people on youtube become a part of stock portfolios.

So we have to solve that issue – either we want people rewarded monetarily, and it all will go to shit optimized for monetization, or we don't, and we will sometimes have to see people we like and admire struggle with poverty.

But peer review is a powerful tool.

Carefully choosing what lemmas to give for solving and reviewing the result is my favorite way to teach young minds. Yes, they do solve most problems themselves. But, most of them likely wouldn't be able to do that before someone dissects problem beforehand and points at weak spots in their explanations.

And that's why I question who prompted the model, how they prompted it, and how much their own ideas influenced the output.

I admit, I don't know enough to judge how much of the right solution was actually enclosed in a first reply

Thank you kindly for sharing

Might be useful for a B that wants to penetrate some C, but is it really useful from a penetrated C perspective?

What was the process of a writing a paper? Was the question asked by a mathematician? Was the paper right from a get-go or was there someone who pointed out mistakes?

How much attempts were made before solution was found?

I will eat my words if an AI oneshotted that one without any external help, but for know I am left wandering whether it's a new way to attribute discoveries to companies instead of people who put the work in

But I also want to argue against the range of understanding argument. Attention has a limit. Anyone who wants develop a deep understanding for any topic would do themselves a disfavor by trying to expand their range aimlessly.

We can't all know everything all at once, so we should just develop some common sense for the most important topics instead. Like "people generally good and against violence". We used to have that once, we can rebuild it now.

Add accents, and half the words would be indistinguishable from each other (note that word "indistinguishable", ironically, would be quite distinguishable).

People parse things like that in so much context, based in their own understanding of a situation, their grasp on speakers accent or speech impairments, etc.

Add to that that most native english speakers blur words together. The pause that in some languages is used to separate words, is used in english to separate sentences. English language as spoken doesn't separate words natively.

The text-to-speech before LLMs was meh. I think it's the ability to generate filler for uncertain words that makes it feel magic compared to before.

Blast on mIRC isn't comparable to TikTok. It's direct comparison would be a discord or tg chat.

There are a lot of discord chats full with teens that spend their time talking about modifying software. It mostly a whimsical software like small games or desktop pets, not something of interest to most adults.

I, uh, might be biased, but I think not a lot of teens were at the mIRC chats at the time. Mostly teens bought magazines, watched TV and rented porn.

It seems to me like you are comparing outliers then to a baseline now. Baseline now is pretty good, drug addiction down, teen preggy down, less crime, etc