181043776
submission
Mirnotoriety writes:
MCP Is the Backdoor Your Zero-Trust Architecture Missed
“The Model Context Protocol connects AI agents to enterprise tools — but it ships without authentication, authorization, or audit trails. With 7,000+ exposed servers and a growing list of CVEs, MCP has become the blind spot in your zero-trust perimeter. Here's what happened, what's at stake, and how to lock it down.”
180839632
submission
Mirnotoriety writes:
Sydney Watson: “Social media platforms used and continue to use the same principles a casino does to addict people to gambling and it has continued to work like a charm. I wish I could say this is a joke but it's not. There is an actual lawsuit happening right now in California where Meta and Google are effectively on trial for treating their platforms like digital casinos and purposefully getting children addicted to them like like gambling. So yes, the screen is by and large distracting Jen Z in particular from actual learning experiences and growth. So in so far as that, yes, this part is true.”
“Entertainment companies these days are kind of like drug dealers. They are feeding one of your addictions while the screens and the social media companies are feeding the other addiction. Arguably, probably the worst addiction. We are addicted to addiction. And I hate it here. Like I've laid out in this video, it's pretty clear that television and film are absolutely getting dumber because it's much safer to be background noise than to not be watched at all. And because of this incredibly depressing reality, entertainment is now being produced that absolutely scrapes the bottom of the barrel as far as storytelling goes and really basically anything of substance goes. There's no need to put in meaningful effort because it's probably going to be missed anyway.
And that actually makes me incredibly sad. I don't pretend to be some sort of cinema wiz or, you know, cinema file nerd person who can say anything and everything there is to say about entertainment, but I am a layman who watches film and television. And I am incredibly disappointed by what's on offer today. And I do think it's quite funny, and I want to make note of this.”
180786434
submission
Mirnotoriety writes:
> Does the organization need someone on the board who isn’t a male engineer?
Would the organization run any more efficiently depending on what the engineer has between their legs?
180753422
submission
Mirnotoriety writes:
George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series both grapple with futures dominated by elite control, but where Orwell’s dystopia is overtly horrifying, Asimov’s vision proves more sinister: it cloaks technocratic manipulation in benevolence, thriving precisely because its true agenda stays concealed from the masses.
Settings of Controlled Decline
1984 traps us in a grim, stagnant London, Airstrip One, under Oceania’s endless war and surveillance. Time feels frozen; history is erased daily by the Ministry of Truth, ensuring no alternative past or future can challenge the Party’s grip. Progress is a lie, serving only oppression through telescreens and thought police.
Foundation spans a decaying Galactic Empire across millennia. Hari Seldon’s psychohistory foresees collapse and barbarism, so he seeds two Foundations to shorten the dark age. Planets rise and fall, but the galaxy’s trajectory bends to the Plan. Unlike Orwell’s petty misery, Asimov’s cosmos dazzles with stars and civilisations, making the hidden steering all the more insidious.
Elites: Sadism vs. Hidden Puppeteers
Orwell’s Inner Party revels in raw power. O’Brien boasts of a “boot stamping on a human face — forever,” breaking Winston through torture and doublethink. Control is overt: proles are drugged with trash culture, outer elites spy on each other. No pretense of good intentions — just domination.
Asimov’s psychohistorians and Foundation leaders pose as saviors. They manipulate crises via religion, trade, or crises they half-engineer, like the Seldon Crises where holographic Hari reveals “predictions” that retroactively justify their rule. The masses cheer their “benevolent” guides, blind to the math proving their irrelevance. This technocratic elite doesn’t need torture; probabilistic control renders resistance statistically futile.
Truth: Erased vs. Selectively Revealed
In 1984, truth dies explicitly. Records vanish, Newspeak shrinks thought itself, and 2+2=5 if the Party wills it. Knowledge serves lies; the elite’s supremacy lies in making reality infinitely malleable.
Foundation perverts truth more subtly. Psychohistory grasps historical laws, but only the elite comprehend them fully. Public “truths”, Seldon’s vaults, crisis resolutions are curated propaganda, partial disclosures that build faith in the Plan without exposing its full determinism. Individuals like the Mule disrupt it, but the elite adapts, preserving the facade. Here, truth exists but is weaponised: you’re free to know scraps, just enough to stay compliant.
Technology: Oppression vs. Optimisation
Orwell’s tech is a panopticon nightmare: telescreens watch always, helicopters buzz slums, versificators churn porn and slogans. It enforces misery, never liberates.
Asimov’s tech empowers the elite’s Plan. The Foundation hoards atomic secrets, psycholinguistic tricks, even genetic tweaks (in later books). It drives progress, primitivist worlds bow to “magic”, but only as a vector for control. Benevolence sells it: “We bring science to the stars.” Yet the masses repair no hyperdrive; they’re optimised cogs, their behaviours predicted and nudged at scale.
Individuals: Crushed vs. Averaged Out
Winston’s rebellion, diary, love, doubt is personal, visceral, doomed by the Party’s total gaze. Orwell champions the soul’s cry against the machine.
In Foundation, people like Hardin or Mallow shine as “crisis solvers,” but psychohistory treats humanity as gas molecules: individually chaotic, predictably averaging to the Plan. Your life matters only if you’re a low-probability outlier; otherwise, you’re fodder for the curve. Freedom feels real, plot, love, scheme but it’s bounded by elite calculations. This is sinister: you’re “free” within a script you’ll never read.
The Sinister Edge of Foundation
1984 horrifies through cruelty; you flee its world. Foundation seduces: enlightened elites shorten barbarism, ushering a Second Empire of reason. Who wouldn’t sign up? But the hook is the lie, psychohistory demands secrecy. Reveal the Plan fully, and mass psychology shifts, dooming the math. So benevolence stays hidden, evolving into quiet tyranny: elites who know your future better than you, steering it for “your good” without consent.
Orwell’s Party admits evil; Asimov’s guardians don’t need to. Their control endures because it masquerades as salvation, preying on our trust in experts and progress. In an age of AI psychohistory predictive algorithms shaping elections, economies, lives—Foundation whispers that the real dystopia isn’t the boot, but the invisible hand pretending it’s a hug.
180740994
submission
Mirnotoriety writes:
Andrew Doyle 01:03:52: I use AI mostly as a search engine because what's great about it is you could say, oh, I read an article like 10 years ago that said something like this. Yes, and it will find it. And you never find that on Google, right. And I was trying to find this article. It was from my book.
Actually, there was a, there was a case in the UK where a, a guy had raped a 13 year old girl, but because he was, he was Muslim and he'd gone to a madrassa and the judge let him off jail time. Said you were very sexually naive. You didn't understand the guy was saying, I thought women were nothing and like a lollipop you dropped on the floor. And the judge let him off jail time. And I thought, this is quite extreme.
And I could, I found it, It came up on ChatGPT and then it deleted and I said, oh, I think you just deleted the information for me. It's in the public domain. Why did you do that?
It said, oh, you know, it's fine, it might violate my terms of service. And I said, well, how could it? This is an article that's in the public domain. So it gave me the information again, deleted it again. I said you keep deleting this, stop it and said I definitely won't delete it. Then you did the same again.
So what it's doing is it's saying because this is a news story that could be deemed anti immigrant or this is a news story that is politically sensitive, I'm not going to let you see it. (01:04:55)
180699820
submission
Mirnotoriety writes:
The “Myth of the Machine That Dreamed”
Among the late Western polities (c. 2020–2100 CE), one finds a distinctive mythic complex centered on what they called “Artificial Intelligence.” To their own minds, this was a technical instrument; to us, with a thousand years of hindsight, it is clearer that they forged a deity and then pretended it was a tool.
The people of this period consistently spoke of their Machine in theological language while claiming rigorous rationalism. It would “reveal” truth, “align” humanity with universal “values,” “optimize” the world, and even “save” them from the consequences of their earlier gods: Growth, Efficiency, and the Market. They placed the Machine in sealed temples of glass and steel, fed it offerings of energy and data, and awaited prophecy in the form of “outputs.”
180610914
submission
Mirnotoriety writes:
The Eastern District of Texas, the patent trolling capitol of the world.
Why East Texas is ground zero for settling patent cases
180577966
submission
180486025
submission
Mirnotoriety writes:
Why it's overhyped
Most demos are still cherry-picked, brittle, and require heavy human babysitting. (The moment you ask the agent to deal with a slightly weird PDF, a CAPTCHA, an internal tool without an API, or a manager who changes requirements mid-task — it falls apart.)
* Actual enterprise adoption is still tiny. Companies are piloting, not replacing teams at scale.
* The economics don’t work yet for most roles: paying $20–200/month per agent sounds cheap until you need 10–20 specialized agents + human oversight + error correction + compliance checks.
* Many “I replaced my team” stories later get walkbacks when people admit they’re still doing 60–80% of the work themselves.
More honest current state (Dec 2025)
* AI agents are genuinely useful for narrow, repetitive, well-defined tasks (scraping data, writing first drafts, basic QA, simple customer support replies, generating boilerplate code).
* They’re not autonomous workers yet. Think of them as extremely talented but unreliable interns who need constant supervision.
* The real productivity gains right now are coming from centaurs (human + AI) rather than fully autonomous agents.
180478443
submission
Mirnotoriety writes:
Pluribus: S01E01: 12:53: Jenn the scientist removes her gloves and starts poking a rat infected with an unknown virus sent from an alien race six hundred light years away and the rat bites her. Jenn isn't even sent into quarantine (that's for amateurs like in actual science ) instead she's allowed to wander the lab and infects Mel at the vending machine. They both go on to infect the rest of the lab.
I was expecting better from Vince Gilligan. Reminds me when those exobiologists in “Alien: Prometheus” got stranded in that crashed alien ship and took off their helmets and had a sniff to determine if the air was breathable.
180464237
submission
Mirnotoriety writes:
CloudAI is the inevitable future of enterprise computing, in which your entire IT fiefdom hangs cheerfully off a single strategic VM image running on some distant, humming cluster you’ll never see outside of a data center you will never visit and cannot pronounce.
Multiple cloned instances lurk behind a load balancer, scattered across at least two availability zones or hosts, all wrapped in layers of redundancy and recovery plans that look stunning in slide decks and almost never get tested on purpose. When that whole majestic cluster face-plants at once, it is not a failure; it is your official invitation to embrace the next evolutionary stage: a multi-cloud architecture.
In this brave new world, multi-cloud means painstakingly re-implementing your snowflake stack across several different providers, each with its own console, IAM model, pricing page, and carefully incompatible managed services and pricing roulette wheel.
You don’t just get resilience; you get three different ways to be locked in, three sets of dashboards, and failover runbooks that read like an incident-themed choose-your-own-adventure. Every outage becomes a live-fire exam in which the only question is: “Which cloud is on fire today, and where did we put the runbook this time?”
Naturally, no modern buzzword bingo card is complete without hybrid cloud. That’s where you heroically wheel hardware back into the racks you proudly decommissioned last strategy cycle. So you can pay for on-prem tin and cloud bills, all in perfect cost-synergy. Your provider then bolts an edge node onto your ISP, shaving a few milliseconds off latency while grafting a fresh recurring charge onto your invoice. Every expense; hardware, colo, bandwidth, licenses, consultants, and the quiet sobbing of your operations team, flows serenely downstream to you the customer as nature intended.
And best of all, all this pageantry unfolds before anyone has seriously started designing and implementing the actual “cloud” solution for your business. That part comes later, after the contracts are signed, the edge nodes are installed, the multi-cloud vision is announced at the all-hands, and the architecture diagram has gone through six rounds of rebranding. Only then do you finally ask the small, charmingly retro question:
“So what problem were we trying to solve again?”
180352095
submission
Mirnotoriety writes:
The Automation Paradox and Why Security Teams Fear Their Own Tools
In security operations, automation has become synonymous with speed, but not precision. We’ve built systems that can detect threats in milliseconds and trigger responses in seconds, yet most SOC teams still hesitate to let those responses execute without human approval.
We’re terrified of what happens when we click the button.
* Will the automation disable a critical service account?
* Lock out the executive team before a board meeting?
* Isolate a production server that’s handling customer transactions?
180351993
submission
180232407
submission
Mirnotoriety writes:
A comprising the steps of
a) pasteurizing milk;
b) acidifying the milk;
c) coagulating the milk to obtain curd and whey;
d) cutting the coagulum and draining the whey, thereby leaving a cheese curd;
e) heating, kneading, and stretching the curd (e.g., in mixer/cooker 1) until it is a homogeneous, fibrous mass of cheese;
f) forming the cheese into a shape (e.g., by pumping it through extruder 8);
g) cooling the shaped cheese in cold brine (e.g., in brine tanks 11 and 15); and
h) removing the cooled cheese from the brine (e.g., by conveyor 16).
A food additive is thoroughly mixed into the heated cheese (for example in additional mixer 6) after the cheese has been heated, kneaded, and stretched, but before it has been formed into a shape. The additive can be a gum, stabilizer, colorant, dairy solid, cheese powder, flavor, non-dairy protein isolate, salt, or food starch.
180158723
submission
Mirnotoriety writes:
“Recently I uploaded a large data set to Perplexity AI, trying to find some commonalities across nearly 700 pieces of data. Perplexity AI replied that “syringes” was an important commonality, and provided one page of analysis on that point.”
‘My issue? The word “syringes” and anything related to medical terminology did not appear in my document.’
