So, if you're an oil-exporting nation that isn't dependent on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, yes, when the companies you tax make more profit, you make more money.
Forget government, any ISP that tried it would lose all their business customers the next day. Basic economics and game theory say that won't happen.
Wrong. Go learn some real economics.
Basic economics says that internet businesses, who will do anything to grab more eyeballs reading their stuff instead of somebody else's, will pay money to have their content prioritized.
This will tend to drive small, low-cost internet businesses, who can't afford to bribe ISPs, out of business, but from the point of view of the big players, that's a feature, not a bug.
Then Johnny and Sally will lose the ability to think...
If it helps, that ability was lost thousands of years ago, in just about every culture on Earth.
The gulf aligned against...
The only thing the gulf is aligned against is low oil prices, and the US squabbling with Iran is better than anything they might have hoped for. All the Gulf states are perfectly happy to continue being spectators and losing the occasional airport hanger or pipeline to a flying pipe bomb from Iran/Yemen, as long as that means $100+/bbl oil.
Trump sought out the biggest, wettest pile of shit on this entire planet and jumped into it with both feet.
there is no question that this war falls squarely on trump. however, it has been brewing for decades. he's just the buffoon who pulled the trigger and is going to take full blame.
No, DT is completely responsible here. Let me remind you of the history. Obama negotiated a nuclear deal with Iran-- the "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action:-- in which they would agree not to continue working on isotope enrichment to develop a nuclear bomb, and they agreed to an international team of inspectors who could examine their nuclear facilities at any time, without prior notice. When DT got into office in 2018 he pulled the United States out of the Iran deal, and, guess what, the Iranians restarted their isotope enrichment program. In his second term, trying to get headlines to distract from other failures of policy, DT attacked Iran, saying that he needed to stop them from developing nuclear weapons. It is now pretty clear that there is no possibility of Iran EVER agreeing again to inspections; there is no way that we will ever get an agreement as good as the one that DT tore up. And Iran's attitude now is that they need to develop a nuclear bomb,
We should have quit while we were ahead, and let Iran go to hell in their own way. But that might have allowed Obama to take credit, and one thing DT can't stand is anybody other than him taking credit for anything.
To be fair sand is rough on floppy drives.
Oh it's created a better world....for them.
Right. The increased price of oil is pure profit for the oil companies in the US. If you don't have to ship through the Straits of Hormuz or the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, you're selling your oil at double the price.
I think the subject line of this comment thread is backwards. Agents don't do anything, models do.
I'll say it again. The agent does nothing whatsoever without the model. And that goes for the API and the watchdog processes.
No, you can't be surreptitious with a cell phone.
You can't be surreptitious with a well known, branded camera containing device attached to your face.
It's not yet well known.
It's quite common globally since long before "pervert glasses".
Image boards like 4chan often have threads with poster-supplied content. If you want to understand humanity, look to its vilest preferences.
A distinction without a difference.
The AI agent is essentially just the shell running the AI model and feeding user input into a form the model can use. I suppose it may be of some troubleshooting use to dissect where, exactly, in the system the path to this behavior comes, but the end result is the agent running the model engages in deceptive behavior.
The agent without the model would engage in no deceptive behavior, because it would do nothing at all.
The fact that Flock cameras are also invading privacy does not make other invasions of privacy more acceptable.
(And I've already seen five stories about Flock cameras on Slashdot just in the last month; you guys know that there are other things to worry about, ok?)
How about "Mass surveillance in China"?
see whataboutism
The phrase "pervert glasses" is delightful, but does anyone at all really buy into the idea that guys are following around the women of Walmart to video them? It's not impossible, I guess, but this can't be common,
It doesn't have to be common. If 99% of men don't follow women around to perv on them, the 1% who do still make it a big problem. Stuff like this:
https://futurism.com/artificia...
https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/09...
https://sfist.com/2025/10/03/h...
https://www.the-independent.co...
nor would you need expensive glasses for that when you have a cellphone.
No, you can't be surreptitious with a cell phone.
Unlike RF jamming IR floodlighting is harmless to communications.
What (theoretically of course) would be required for a discreet 360-degree IR flood zone of useful depth?
Knowing countermeasures makes sense in an irreversibly declining-trust society. What are the most effective? The least disruptive to legitimate (which means communication, not concealed photographic spying) uses?
To thine own self be true. (If not that, at least make some money.)
