So OpenAI "accidentally" lets their internal agents under test hack some third parties, and not to be out done Anthropic rushes out to say ours too!

I mean nothing says invest-able business like 'hi our products are dangerous and despite positioning ourselves as a leading tech firms we can't competently implement internet access controls'

We really are living in the dumbest universe

dude just hurl the abuse back at them. It is way more fun

He probably sees perfectly clearly unlike you, who can't see thru the constant tears.

What a sad sack

You sounds like an obese bitch

That is certainly true. However I also don't think this lawsuit should be entertained. Nothing here rises to the level real harassment, except in the head of this former employer, if even there as it just as like they are suing some with deep pockets because they can.

Cases like this need to be tossed, quickly and loudly to cut the bullshit.

at common law it was 'the putting in of fear'

So are you are precious snow flake afraid of backed goods? This is stupid, this Olympic level vitcimhood.

Notice how the Kamala cuckolds are the ones crying!

You and Fred and Losers, that is why you're both so upset. You know you'd be on the pie end of things because you're always on the pie end of things arn't you. Fucking cucks
 

FUCK YOU TO Fred!

There are to of sales jobs where there literally is nothing separating the good performers from the great ones on than hustle. How many calls did you make. How much time did you spend checking back with people who said "I'll think about it."

You frequently have sales teams where there is nobody that is performing badly. You might very well have a case where everyone had a 500k in revenue goal and all of them hit. Still someone will have done 650k and someone will have done 515k. There will still be a top and bottom. Making it a little 'good natured' internal competition is perfectly fine!

Unless you're a FUCKING KAREN

Calm down Karen.

This entire thing is stupid. Nobody can have any fun anymore. It is only assault and its only sadistic if people feel force. Nothing wrong with announcing a little contest to the effect of top closer gets throw a pie at lowest closer during the company picnic.

If that is your team dynamic fine. Now if someone says "Boss, I don't want throw a pie anyone and I don't why a pie thrown at me" than yeah you need to drop the idea immediately and say something like "ok it was probably not best thing I ever came up with, alright instead top closer gets $100 gift cert to Baker Square"

People just need to be adults.

Remember Weev, yeah if you or so much as increment and ID in a URL string, we can get dragged into court and find ourselves with 3.5 month prison sentence.

OpenAi on the other hand can run what is at the end of the stay still a program, that some person chose to run and allow to go around the web throwing malicious payloads at other people's systems and .... NOTHING.

All opinions on AI / LLMs / Agents etc aside resource consumption is a pretty poor proxy for productivity/efficiency/activity.

Sure a macro level it works, oil usage by nation states does track with economic activity. At the house hold level not so much. If the Simths buy 20% more gasoline this month it might just mean Mrs. Simth picking up and dropping off Mr. Smith to and from work because his little efficent coupe is in the shop and she needs the Scoccer Mom Edition Expedition to cart the kids around all day. I don't think anyone would say - hey look they're gasoline maxxing, that has to be good news!

For business getting excited about how many AI tokens someone used and thinking more means better is the same thing as measuring how many hours your salaried employees average a week at the office and thinking if it increases for 42 to 47 that must mean you are getting more productivity out of them. Maybe - but you don't know and more than likely not. Except this is even stupider in that there is a direct operation expense attached to it!

Token Maxxing, really just means you SUCK at management and you don't know what anyone really does all day.

Because it has turned senate elections into a popularity contest they were never designed to be. We have the House for that.

The House has proportional representation by population, which gives individual constituents equal representation in our national government.

The Senate being popularly elected means if you live in a low population state you as an individual get extra representation for um reasons...

The Senate was supposed to represent the States themselves, the idea being that senators would legislate from a perspective of what makes sense in terms of federal rules to enable good State governance. Secondly to be a body a bit more isolated from the whims of the moment. Rather than react OMG OMG affordability! because there is a short term oil squeeze they be mindful about what might blow a hole in state budgets a decade later, ie while locking certain institutional investors out of single family real estate might sound popular right now, what will do property tax revenues over the next decade? (just a illustration not taking a position on the recent housing act here)

Now people will make various arguments about if it is easier or harder to 'buy' a legislator depending on their being selected by the state house vs winning a state wide election. My opinion is that in the era of big money and mass media it is easier buy a statewide election than to determine the outcome of 51 smaller races built around often very local issues, so you determine the outcome of the national election but opinions very. If you do believe otherwise fine, but then we should have simply eliminated the Senate rather than make it a popular vote; which I would also consider to be better than the current model and support!

I expect it is true. Apache helicopter pilots are said learn to use their eyes independently. The brain is plastic, if there is enough pressure to do so.

The question really is what is the price tag, in terms of performance impairment at other tasks.

In a lot of cases, maybe even most it could be that functionally but there are still real assets under it and real direct economic interests in the outcomes for parties to those contracts and instruments, that alone separates it from simple wagering which is what a prediction market is.

Most of stocks, options and other financial instruments shift risk, or speculatively take on risk for potential gain. "predicting" who will get an Oscar, with a payout if you're right or loss of your "investment" if you are not, is just that betting..

You and the counter party have no economic interest or fallout other than the bet you created.

The only legal financial instrument I can really think of that we permit (and it probably should not be legal IMHO because it too is just gambling for the same reasons) is the naked credit default swap. We should not allow someone to ensure a bond they don't own. The only explaination for why we do is regulatory capture. Because when the SEC had to decide if you could resell life insurance policies you no longer needed, the answer was No!

Think a business takes out a 20 year term policy on their CEO, they have an insurable interest the unexpected death of the CEO will disrupt the business. The CEO resigns in year 11. There are 9 years left on the policy, the thought was you could sell the policy on a secondary market to someone else who would keep it enforce betting the guy/gal will kick the bucket and you'll get the pay off. The SEC said no you can't securitize a policy in that way the owner party won't have an insurable interest.

For some reason though we can do this with bonds. I can sell you credit default swap on a bond you don't own. You can bet essentially that ACME CO won't be able to John Smith his $1000 coupon in 2032, for some reason.

That guy though is probably not going to upload video of you're momentary lapse in judgement to the Internet and use it to destroy.

The guy recording with the pervert glasses or the mobile phone means to do exactly that. Honestly I am really starting to question if we should put some more limitations on recording anyone on property you don't own.