Very misleading analysis, the 8% direct grant comes from adding universities, hospitals and non-charities that make up 85% of the denominator. If you account for this using their own numbers, you get about 50% overhead, not 92%
But this just goes to show that we need watching and monitoring infrastructure even for the organizations who claim to be watching and monitoring on our behalf. We have to know who's full of it, and who is acting in a more trustworthy fashion.
What you point out is a huge miss. There is little chance that it wasn't intentional. There should, at minimum, be an explanation presented as to why they did that?
"The incident appears to have been a cross-site scripting hack. The origin of rhe malicious scripts was a userpage on the Russian Wikipedia. The script contained Russian language text.
During the shutdown, users monitoring [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/special:RecentChanges Recent changes page on Meta] could view WMF operators manually reverting what appeared to be a worm propagated in common.js
Hopefully this means they won't have to do a database rollback, i.e. no lost edits. "
Interesting to note how trivial it is today to fake something as coming "from the Russians".
Why do you think it was faked? It is a well known Russian tech (woodpecker), the earliest version I can find now was created in 2013 (but I personally saw it in 2007), it is a well known Russian damocles sword against misconfigured MediaWiki websites.
That user, epicprogrammer's comment history suggests alignment with the Musk/Thiel/Anduril/DoW/anti-Anthropic crowd who are incessantly trying to damage Wikipedia's reputation to push a "Grokipedia" where they can define the narrative.
I wouldn't be surprised if that group were the origin of this attack too.
Thank god we are too small to even be a consideration for that - we are the "AI datacenter in orbit before Google" race which is a little more doable with just a few engineers in a 15-large company.
Unless you mean Golden Dome could be a risk to our project, which is already an obvious thing.
I think you just try to shoehorn the Golden Dome into every single conversation. You didn't explain why it was relevant to their work or why their discussion would be important.
Why do you reply to every single comment on hackernews about Golden Dome with some defensive or downright warmongering assertion? What stake do you have in that program?
Yes the original article was "Anthropic refuses to bend..." A lot of framing going on, but the fact is people who develop technology _do_ have a say in how it gets used.
reply