Can’t read my emails on it though.

Great feature!!

I also try, but it is invoked on my behalf. For instance, at work if I make a pull request now multiple AI bots are summoned to give an analysis of my code changes. It’s extremely verbose and annoying, and I think basically nobody reads it because all it does is just spam the comments section with way too much text.

I vehemently hate OpenAI, ChatGPT, et al. At least it’s funny when it summarizes my changes as significant improvements that improve code maintainability. I guess getting glazed by the bot in a way my manager can see is helpful to my career? Though honestly he probably also doesn’t read that shit. So glad all this energy is wasted for nothing.

“The enigma of success” whoever came up with that line has truly mastered the art of auto-fellatio.

Why does this story magically no longer become interesting because of a group that helps defected NKs?

There is nothing magic about it. The organization that’s cited isn’t the problem. The problem is the BBC cites that org as proof that this person’s claims are true. But neither that org nor the BBC have said, “we have corroborated Jin-su’s story.” On the contrary, the BBC just admits they didn’t or couldn’t corroborate the story themselves. So in my mind I may as well have read this article on any rando’s blog post, or in the NYT in 2001 under a Judith Miller byline. It lacks credence.

I wouldn’t have had anything to say if BBC said that they reviewed some documents that showed Jin-su’s claim. Maybe a few of the “hundreds” of fake IDs that he used, for example. But instead they just read another testimony from PSCORE. Was that other testimony verified? They don’t bother explaining. So they just use an unverified testimony from PSCORE and pass that off to make the reader believe that that’s good enough in place of actually verifying Jin-su’s testimony!

Would you expect a news outlet to be able to somehow verify the testimony of a prisoner of war before reporting on it?

“If the circumstance were different would you expect something different?” is what you are asking me. The interviewee isn’t a POW, but a defector. And not an escapee, because according to the article he was already sent abroad, so it’s not like he fled with merely the clothes on his back and a story to tell. So I would presume he would have a bit more evidence to share with the BBC than just a story, just as many of the people responding to me seem to presume that because it’s been reported by the BBC it’s prima facie undeniably true.

You’re tedious and annoying.

In cases like these the journalists can and often do say something to the effect of they were able to corroborate the claims. But you’re super right about being careful, because they also can mishandle the data they receive to the point where they dox the anonymous source, too. That’s what happened with Reality Winner and The Intercept. They botched it, and she was arrested.

I’m not doubting the N Korean scheme to infiltrate IT jobs. There’s even that woman who was prosecuted (I think she lived in Arizona?) because she is one person who acted as a facilitator for this scheme. My point is the BBC ran a story with an “anonymous” source then admits in the middle that they couldn’t substantiate any of the claims. That’s the problem here.

You’re not addressing the fact that BBC admits they didn’t/couldn’t substantiate his claims, which apparently is no problem for your own journalistic standards.

A TeamViewer shooter coming out to downvote you lol

The BBC cannot independently verify the specifics of Jin-su’s testimony, but through PSCORE, an organisation which advocates for North Korean human rights, we’ve read testimony from another IT worker who defected that supports Jin-su’s claims.

Oh. Ok. You’d think he can prove something with like a pay stub, at minimum. But I guess the standard of proof when reporting on N Korea is “an anti-n korea org also said so.” I was genuinely interested in this article until that line.

I have long contended that the computer industry is course-correcting with Android/iOS/mobile. They realized their prior “mistake” of letting people actually own, control, and modify their devices. Apple and iPhone is the worst in this regard.

It’s like he selectively forgot about the Snowden leaks

Love to expand my business infrastructure in a country that’s actively perpetrating a genocide. Very cool.

More necessary than that, really.

don’t run untrusted scripts from the internet on your computer.

CEO Sam Altman warns that the rollout presents unpredictable risks.

But that doesn’t prevent his profit motive from consuming untold amounts of electricity to shove this into your face. They know what they’re doing. They know their product is used primarily to generate spam, and secondarily is designed to form addictive faux-relationships with their users.

Burn in hell. Actually, given the direction this is all going, we will all be burning in hell within generations.

The macbook pro is the perfect laptop except for the Linux hill that I must die on. Every time I look at other offerings, they all fail just like Nate is saying in some regard. Screen. Speakers. Keyboard. Touchpad. Thermals. Battery life. The MBP is truly best-in-class hardware. But I just want to use Linux…

You’re spending a lot of effort complaining about your working conditions and then you see other people complain about their working conditions and your response is to get mad at THEM instead of the capitalist system and exploiting class that keeps them and you perilously employed and in your case seemingly while you’re sacrificing your body.

Pick the right targets for your invective. Instagram uploaders aren’t making your life worse.

I’m extremely excited to announce that huge companies never lie, especially when they self-publish these kinds of reports. Therefore, I trust this primary source fully.

edit: I don’t want to be misconstrued. I am not saying that their environmental report is a total lie or distortion of the truth, either. I’m saying you cannot over-rely on primary sources when reporting on them.