The negativity isn’t anti-military service. It’s because this specific expansion at this particular time for this current administration is all very ridiculous.

I think most people still are in support of the idea if military service even if that job may entail death.

People should look up what the US military has been up to for the past half a century if they think this particular time is an abberation.

Yeah just think of how great it would've been to serve in the past decades. Oh wait you'd still end up killing people in the Mideast - half way around the world, and in turn getting killed by them, all in endeavors that ultimately make the world a worse and less safe place. And that certainly includes America.

> Studies 1-5 showed that people are disproportionately likely to live in places whose names resemble their own first or last names (e.g., people named Louis are disproportionately likely to live in St. Louis).

When I lived in Austin, it seemed like a third of boys born were being named Austin. I presume many of them will end up living there as adults but not because of this particular bias, because they were raised there and have family’s there seems to be a more likely driver.

"Nominative determinism" is everywhere once you look for it. My vet's last name is McStay.

I just listened to an interview with Carl Trueman about his new book which criticizes transhumanism.

Missed opportunity to call it AAII and market it as twice as powerful as regular AI.

We put AI in our AI so the AI is already baked in.

AI hallucinates, AAII stutters

A^2I^2 or (AI)^2

They would be smart enough to know/assume it’s a rigged game they are playing and stay away from it. The veil of laws and regulations is a lie when they’re not enforced

Reminds me of a debate in college. I was in college during the baseball doping days in early/mid 2000s and gave a debate presentation that the only way to make it a fair sport is to allow it for everyone; basically there should be no rules. The class vehemently disagreed but purely on emotion, no solid defenses were made that I couldn’t counter with a simple logic rebuttal. In any case, I tend to agree with you. The laws are only on the books to make naive people feel like there money is being looked after and the asset values aren’t manipulated. Remove the laws and the layman is a skeptic by default as he should be.

Guerrilla warfare strategies undercut old saying like this and are essentially what these hacker groups represent

> Also, security is an ongoing expense. Retaliation is one time.

Disagree. Retaliating draws a larger target on you. Increasing need for ongoing security. And increasing need to retaliate. You’re retaliating against multiple fronts and vectors. It’s all very expensive and an arms race.

> Retaliating draws a larger target on you. Increasing need for ongoing security

Does it? I feel like I could pretty easily pay a mercenary group to fuck around with Iran without being particularly concerned about blowback. (My main risk would be getting scammed.)

If you could keep your association with that mercenary a secret then sure. But if you were IDK, Walmart, and you went on this offensive or openly admitted to backing the mercenary. Well, now that Iranian group may want to push harder. Instead of attacking your servers, they begin attacking your POS, thermostats, security cameras, time clocks, inventory mgmt hardware, etc. they eventually start targeting your employees and their personal homes and such.

They could do all this now, but they generally don’t. Poke the bear and it might bite.

Having worked in anti-Phishing brand protection firm on behalf of firms like Apple, it absolutely draws a target on your back.

We used to receive routine threats from the IRGC on top of the usual DDoS attacks on our systems. Turns out cybercriminals don’t like it when you disrupt their cash flow. Thankfully we never got SWAT’d or had a box of heroin shipped to our office like that one journalist.

This is likely why the administration is suggesting that private firms to hack back. It draws a larger target on the private firms instead of the administration.

I think it’s a good strategy to tell firms, don’t hold back and essentially they won’t be held liable for damages they cause but it’s another thing entirely for those firms to actually go on an offensive mission.

But yes, I think it’s understood that you’re on your own on this front and the government isn’t going to come to your rescue or protect you, which I feel like isn’t really a change from status quo but just being more direct in admitting it

What are you “scoring” though. US firm loses data, has downtime, lost revenues, etc. If they attack back, what damages are they doing that they even care about? Seems to me they just are asking to be continually targeted.

Also, why burn the resources? Attacking isn’t free.

When I read that sentence I thought of travel booking sites. The kind that are unavailable to help you when you arrive at a hotel that has no record of your reservation. The kind I avoid precisely because I’ve had enough problems like that where it’s not worth saving 10% and I’d rather just book direct and avoid the headaches.

When the hotel, airline, car rental, etc. can’t even talk to me because of the channel I purchased from that’s a problem. So I’d expect similar issues from buying through a AI interface. Walmart will say something about “we can’t see your order details” when your delivery driver forgot the milk.

The question is more why employ a full time receptionist when fractional services are available and it’s an old well established industry. A couple hundred dollar a month could employ a human only when the phone rings and to schedule their visit plus any FAQ. I’m sure Ruby.com already has plenty of auto shop customers.