It absolutely 100% reflects EXACTLY what your internal culture is. Otherwise they would be demonstrating how that sort of behavior, and this specific instance were addressed by leadership to make it clear thats not acceptable.

But no one did anything did they. It was entirely acceptable, and theyve been promoted

The research paper itself has a problem: It sets out to prove a hypothesis which is obvious and self-evident, and doesn't need empirical proof. (See e.g. "Politics and the English Language", by George Orwell). This seems to be a common problem with psychological research.

But the "Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale" is kind of neat. I could imagine a version of the scale being useful for screening job applicants, or as a section of the GMAT.

I agree with most of your post, but this sentence contains a rather large assumption which is almost certainly false: you are saying that the 36% didn't vote because they "don't care about the outcome".

There are a number of possible reasons for not voting, but I think "it's all the same to me who wins" probably ranks rather low among those reasons. One of the most common reasons (and this is backed up by surveys) is the perception that your vote doesn't affect the outcome. If you don't live in a swing state, that is a perfectly rational reason not to vote. Unfortunately, we can't fix this problem without making major changes to the electoral system.

Then there are all the *other* reasons people don't vote-- they didn't register to vote in time, they don't have the right ID, they lack transportation, they were busy working (that's a common one since US elections are held on Tuesdays), and so forth and so on.

If you want to start fixing the problem of non-participation, you have to know the underlying reasons.

Yes, I've considered that angle. But I think the best approach is a simple one: NONE of the language in the final product, not even a sentence or a half-sentence, should be AI-generated. AI sources should be treated the same way as any other written source: If you quote it without attribution, it's plagiarism.

Under these hypothetical rules, a writer could still use AI for preliminary research, in the same way that they might use wikipedia (and with the same caveats).

The idea of "just using a little AI help" for the actual writing is too much of a slippery slope. (I've talked to professional writers who have used that phrase, so I know). How much is "a little help"? If it's only a little bit of help, you haven't saved much time. If it's more than a little, we're back to square one.

There are plenty of talented writers out there who need jobs, and are willing to do the work, and won't complain if you forbid them from using AI "helpers".

"At least they owned their mistake?" When you've been caught red-handed violating your own policy, you don't have a lot of options besides "owning" it.

It may indeed be true that this unfairly penalizes the ethical writers who work for ArsTechnica. Unfortunately, that's kind of how publishing works; when a publication violates standards of integrity or of quality, it hurts the career of everyone who works at that publication.

Regarding the whole topic of "backlash": Even if you, me, and everyone else on this thread stops reading ArsTechnica (which I haven't read in a while anyway), that's not going to affect their bottom line. It won't even be noticed. That's why journalists need to set up a regulatory body, as I suggested in my earlier post. There are tens of millions of people who will deliberately avoid AI-generated news and deliberately seek out news sources with the "no-AI" seal of approval. *That* will damn sure be noticed.

The unfortunate part of the story is that before this story came out, we readers had no way to know ArsTechnica was publishing AI-generated stories. (In fact, their stated policy was that they did *not* use AI).

What working writers should do is to form a nonprofit organization, create a simple but distinctive banner that declares "This news source is free of AI-generated content", and then *trademark* the banner so that it can only be used with permission. Sites that commit to a "no AI" policy get to use the banner free of charge. Sites that don't have such a policy don't get to use it, and sites that are caught lying (like ArsTechnica) get their right to use the banner revoked.

The operational costs are neglible, and run at most in hundreds of millions. Google made ~$10B on Play Store in 2025 (20% of estimated $50B revenue). 99% of what you pay for is monopoly pricing, fundamental cost is two magnitudes less than that. Moreover, the developer "support" is abysmal, as Google has near zero motivation to deal with small time developers in monopoly market.

> Cell phones are not required to offer apps at all. Don't like smart phone terms? Don't use a smart phone.

That's a relevant argument for as long Google doesn't exploit network effects to lock you in. Once it does, it's more akin to cable company charging you 100x more above board for the privilege of using their wires. You're free to not use the service duopoly of Comcast or terrible ISP #2, aren't you?

Yet that is literally how Pontiac schemes work until they collapse...

Chess has become more popular in the West, in part, because they've found a way to make it accessible and appealing to beginner and intermediate players.

When I was a kid in the 80s, it seems like most of the major newspapers had a "chess column"... but these were devoted to coverage of games between grandmasters. If you weren't already a dedicated player, you wouldn't have a good time reading the chess column. It was like reading about quantum physics. But even I can follow a GothamChess video about two 400-ELO players.
 

A non-trivial percentage of Apple users are choosing the platform because it's good for music production. Cloud-based computing won't work for that, because of latency.

There's strong evidence that too much sodium can increase blood pressure, at least in a subset of the population. Like everything else in medicine, this is an observation based on the available data, and it may change in the future if new data contradicts it. But it's flatly wrong to state that "salt has zero links to high blood pressure".

There's strong evidence that you can improve your lipid profile, and your risk of cardiovascular disease, by limiting saturated fat. Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the US. Nothing "overrated" about the risk of saturated fat.

But the era of the horse probably wasn't so bad if you lived in Oxford, or in "a rural village around the time of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee" (like the one Tolkien grew up in).

Should be trained to actually fly the aircraft, not set the GPS and forget it.

Navigation by alternate methods isn't even a little bit hard if you can handle pretty basic math and have charts. With electronic charts this should be no problem, you estimate your location based on land marks or ATC and then plot your bearing - or let ATC direct you. None of the avionics you require to navigate with your brain are GPS based. VOR, ILS, a compass and a guess within a few hundred miles of your current position and you should be able to figure it out, even in IFR weather.

If they had the close runways because the pilots were incapable of landing on their own with visual references or standard ILS, they are in no way qualified to be in an airliner. W T F

Citation needed. Offhand, I can't think of anything that a medical school would be less likely to do. Even if they didn't care about the potential eight-figure lawsuits (and believe me, they *do* care very much about that)... what possible "training" purpose would "fingering an anesthetized patient" serve?
 

I'm not so sure about law. I've met a number of attorneys who, shockingly, *couldn't* get a job anywhere, or at least not a job that paid much more than minimum wage. And this was before LLMs even were a thing. The explanation I've heard is that it's become much easier to get a law degree (some law schools essentially are open admission), so the market got saturated.

Also, if you *do* want to gun for that senior partner job at Dewey, Cheatham & Howe, you'll have to work 90-hour weeks for a lot of years first. I've met attorneys who were on that career path, and they were truly unhappy souls.