How often does this actually happen in reality versus it being trotted out as a backstory after being caught?

If he stabbed someone and got this treatment, it would be very different than if he had a loud but normal argument you might see in any big box store in the US.

That he doesn't go on to protest why he got locked up makes me think it was something more serious.

Some time ago (can't easily find it anymore) there was a expose on UK prisons, which was interesting without even knowing what crime the prisoner was convicted of, but turns out it was abuse of a relative.

This is not an ad-hominum, but does put into question the statistical training backgrounds of both of these authors to accurate assess the data.

AI will change the world, but not in the way the OP (Thomas Hunter) thinks.

--

The first statement, AI will change the world, is low surprise and clearly true already.

The second statement, not in the way X thinks, is also low surprise, because most technologies have very unpredictable impacts, especially if it is "close to singularity" or the singularity.

(Nazi Germany and Putin's Russia being the classical examples of democracies going authoritarian).

Like I don't see too many of the items applying to classically authoritarian regimes like China.

Let's apply the guide's own advice:

> Always think critically, fact-check and point out the truth, expose ignorance with facts.

The guide after all is written by Eastern / Europeans, the people is getting expropriated the most by Trump, in January 2017, right as Trump got elected and the democratic "resistance" movement was all the range. (Surprisingly, Trump 2 is even more extreme, and no more talk of resistance).

In certain roles, AI micromanagement clearly will create higher performance. Add the marketplace of capitalism and it'll all compete away.

There are certain roles, like artists, where this is the wrong solution wholly: monitoring whether an artist is at her desk will create badly performing artists, and this will show. In these roles, these tools won't apply.

It takes little skill to predict something like "it won't snow on New York on 3/15/2025". Whereas if you said it will snow on 3/15/2025, and it's true, that's skill.

The social media app Xiaohongshu (小红书) does literally translate to "little red book" in English. However, this is completely different from Mao's famous work, which was never called this in Chinese. Mao's book was informally known as "Hongbaoshu" (红宝书) meaning "red treasured book" and formally titled "Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong" (毛主席语录).

The apparent connection in English comes from translators using "Little Red Book" for both terms (maybe due to training or an agenda? who knows, choosing word-by-word translation for one and popular translation for another), even though they're distinct and unrelated in the original Chinese, and of course in the official desired English "RedNote" too.

So this is a case of translators with an agenda translating two phrases with different original mandarin renditions (hongbaoshu and xiaohongshu), and picking and choosing the style of translation (base on usage vs based on character) to get the English translation to merge both of them as "Little Red Book".

Previously, we had statement "the weak force is short range". In order to explain it, we had to invent a new concept "stiffness" that is treated as a primitive and not explained in terms of other easy primitives, and then we get to "accurately" say that the weak force is short due to stiffness.

I grant the OP that stiffness might be hard to explain, but then why not just say "the weak force is short range -- and just take that as an axiom for now".

Analogously, with a lot of grey area stuff, a person can almost surely get away with it ... but not if they post it online and it gets attention.

I guess more important than empirically whether banks tell you, it's that it should be their right to tell you if they want.