That's a different situation. Those urls weren't meant for public use, and provided private information on user devices.
Furthermore, on reading the wikipedia page, his conviction was vacated.
> On April 11, 2014, the Third Circuit issued an opinion vacating Auernheimer's conviction, on the basis that the New Jersey venue was improper,[60] since neither Auernheimer, his co-conspirators, nor AT&T's servers were in New Jersey at the time of the data breach.
> While the judges did not address the substantive question on the legality of the site access, they were skeptical of the original conviction, observing that no circumvention of passwords had occurred and that only publicly accessible information was obtained
Just replace them with a single "-" or a double "--". That's what many people do in casual writing, even if there are prescriptive theories of grammar that call this incorrect.
Suddenly I see all these people come out of the woodworks talking about "em dashes". Those things are terrible; They look awful and destroy coherency of writing. No wonder LLM's use them.
Great writers aren't experts in the look of punctuation, I don't think anyone makes a point of you have to read Dickinson in the original font that she wrote in. Some of the greats hand-wrote their work in script that may as well be hieroglyphics, the manuscripts get preserved but not because people think the look is superior to any old typesetting which is objectively more readable.
> Great writers aren't experts in the look of punctuation
No, but someone arguing an entire punctuation is “terrible” and “look[s] awful and destroy[s] coherency of writing” sort of has to contend with the great writers who disagreed.
(A great writer is more authoritative than rando vibes.)
> don't think anyone makes a point of you have to read Dickinson in the original font that she wrote in
Not how reading works?
The comparison is between a simplified English summary of a novel and the novel itself.
> (A great writer is more authoritative than rando vibes.)
A great author is equivalent to rando vibes when it comes to what writing looks like, they aren't typesetting experts. I have a shelf of work by great authors (more than one, to be fair) and there are few hints on that shelf of what the text they actually wrote was intended to look like. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if several of them were dictated and typed by someone else completely with the mechanics of the typewriter determining some of the choices.
Shakespeare seems to have invented half the language and the man apparently couldn't even spell his own name. Now arguably he wasn't primarily a writer [0], but it is very strong evidence that there isn't a strong link between being amazing at English and technical execution of writing. That is what editors, publishers and pedants are for.
Years past humans would hear stories from within their social circle. These are important because they create bonds and pass on wisdom & knowledge from one to many. From this, humans gained a yearn for hearing stories, but without adequate restrictions anything that fulfills pleasure can and will becomes a vice. The average human will spend their little "free time" (another delusion) toiling as an observer to fantasies conjured up by individuals they have no connection or relationship with. Fictional media preys on your mind the same way a video game, or a coke, or any one of these artificial productions of the modern world preys on you.
It's utterly pointless and degrades one's life into voyeurism. Many don't think of this, nor think about the food they eat, the work they do, the "life" they live, they only think of the consequences if they become painfully visible. Even then you will see people unwilling to get out of the bond of slavery, and form lies to protect their habit just as an addict of heroin addict would.
Non-fiction can be as bad (biographies, documentaries), but (for the most part) it's primary purpose isn't a voyeur's pleasure, so it's rarely abused in the same way.
Yes, but that doesn't mean I won't react with the same hostility that I recieve. It contradicts common sense one user will be burdened by hostility, and when they lash back out, the accosters will show it as proof of something. In another aspect, most people I have met in real life are cowards who don't dare speak out of turn. Of course, I have never had this issue in real life or otherwise, and I take personal joy in the wisdom I raise before the invalids, even though they will never appreciate or understand it.
It seems to me like the inherent trust in open source software is a big problem. Reliance on software maintained by strangers, sometimes just one individual, and not reading/understanding the code before running it.
> licensing your project GPL or the like usually means relegating it to obscurity
Subjective. Sure if you are talking about percent of market share, but it's a huge market, you don't need to capture even 1% of users to have a viable business.
The vast majority of the GNU ecosystem is GPL. Bash, git, Apache, Gimp, Blender, Libreoffice.
There are also a lot of projects that are dual licensed, allowing commercial software to be charged a fee and non-commercial software to use for free with GPL.
I have no idea about the grant process, but could they implement system in which allowing reputable scientists and researchers vote on grants in their area of expertise?
Most grant awarding processes operate similarly to bids for tender. That is, the awarding body invites researchers to submit proposals that fall within its remit.
The submitted proposals can involve including a year or more of "pilot data", being experiments showing that the proposed approach is feasible. In addition 3 or 4 months of writing and admin (budgets,legal requirements, etc) are needed to complete the application.
So an application can easily be 1.5 to 2 man-years of work to prepare.
A screening process then takes place. This involves the awarding organization vetting the credentials of the applicants, as well as recruiting specialists to give their expert opinion. This takes at least 6 months.
Then there will be panel of experts who review all the above and vote. The vote is "taken into consideration" by the executive of the awarding body who make the final decisions. They might award funding for three years of work for maybe 10-15% of applicants.
As you can see, it is a massively burdensome process, with typically a very poor return on investment on the behalf of researchers.
And no, I don't think current AI is anywhere near competent enough to replace most of this process, apart from maybe the admin and legal sides.
Massively burdensome?
No, it is an absolutely essential process that over the last 80 years of “industrial academic research” has brought us wonders and insights.
Three to four months to design. write, and refine a 13 page document is working at a very leisurely pace in my opinion (43 years of writing more than 100 applications).
And yes, I do think AI systems can improve much of this process and result in much stronger science.
You forgot to include the 1-1.5 years of pilot data needed for a typical biomedical science (wet lab) grant proposal.
Essentially, the overall return on research investment for academic biomedical researchers themselves as a whole is negative. Which is why a substantial subsidy in the form of underpaid students, etc, is needed.
There are a few top performers who achieve a positive return from grant applications. A more streamlined and less fickle review process would be indeed improve matters, though I very much doubt LLMs in their current state of development will help this process.
This is sort of how it works, but usually there is a process of reviewing and asking questions during interviews rather than just voting. In any case, both voting and reviewing require one to read a lot of grant proposals. The problem is that an overworked scientist reviewing grants may just resort to LLMs for that.
This is disallowed by NIH for confidentiality concerns. But reviewer are free to submit the applicants paper to an LLM for commentary. Useful to detect traces of p-hacking that require careful teading.
Most grants in the U.S. are discussed and scored by reputable scientists and researchers in a committee format, and those scores weigh heavily on the likelihood of a grant being funded.
It's actually one of my favorite parts of the job, getting to read new, promising ideas that I think might genuinely help humanity.
I’ve worked in the public sector software space for 14 years. The role of a dispatcher comes with significant emotional stress. Many dispatchers are overworked, and the demands of the job often take a toll on their health. Many are overweight too.
In some large cities, there may be only one or two dispatchers covering the night shift in high-crime areas. Their responsibilities extend far beyond simply answering calls. They must also dispatch units, monitor officer safety, run NCIC queries, conduct searches, and provide critical information in real time. The position requires exceptional multitasking skills and the ability to remain calm under constant pressure.
Furthermore, on reading the wikipedia page, his conviction was vacated.
> On April 11, 2014, the Third Circuit issued an opinion vacating Auernheimer's conviction, on the basis that the New Jersey venue was improper,[60] since neither Auernheimer, his co-conspirators, nor AT&T's servers were in New Jersey at the time of the data breach.
> While the judges did not address the substantive question on the legality of the site access, they were skeptical of the original conviction, observing that no circumvention of passwords had occurred and that only publicly accessible information was obtained
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev#Imprisonment