True, misinformation coming from "trusted" sources is much more damaging than some idiot with a blog posting nonsense, simply by the fact that it's framed as something trusted by so many others.

False dichotomy. Nobody here is talking about an idiot with a blog posting nonsense.

False information coming from sources that "look" trustable but are actually not are very damaging - on purpose, as that is literally the intent.

Incomplete/biased information from trustable sources that are not deliberately attempting to mislead (as in sources that adhere to the ethics of not presenting information that is factually false, even if the picture is not "complete" as you suggest) is a slight wrong, and has existed since the dawn of the printed word - it's editorial in nature - but its effects on creating social problems pales in comparison to weaponized disinformation campaigns.

Hand-wringing about the later as if it's some kind of new thing, or something most people don't know about strikes me as super naive. The insidiousness of the former is simply that people don't appreciate the scale to which it's happening.

No, but treating two wrongs as the same degree of wrongness is pretty dumb.

Or just shit like this: https://www.wsj.com/business/m...

yes yes "i'm old and cranky"

This guy gets it.

We're old here. The kids that used snap ten years ago are adults still using snap.

Yes, wierprints. We here at slashdot have the pulse on fashion in a way that most ordinary citizens do not. Your commentary is quite obvious to us, the arbiters of high fashion.

This is why Gay men will never break into High fashion, they simply do not understand fashion the same way that hetro men do.

Cursor has a model? Oh yeah, I totally forgot they had one. Literally. Not a joke.

Cursor has already peaked.

Maybe its just the lazy slashdot blurb choosing per usual, but just recounting a single teachers antidotes? Such bullshit. Don't post that crap. Come back when you show a statistical meaningful test decline in both reading and math.

So, ai agent places "prediction" that public figure A is dead, orders product from grocery store with hidden ingredient they are known to be allergic to and delivers to their house. This isn't Asimov, we built the bots without the three rules.

Or more like "cloud infrastructure running within physical and legal jurisdiction of the EU is running locally to the EU" if you prefer .. if it's software they've written, running on hardware within the EU's physical and legal reach, voila, "sovereignty".

"The only way to ensure sovereignty and control is with software running locally with NO cloud dependency."

They're not talking about personal sovereignty. Cloud infrastructure an organization owns is "running locally" to that organization.

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure Facebook offers that same level of quality content, and advertisers seem fine with it.