The police have gotten very effective at quashing effective movements, and we’ve had decades of concerted effort to make it more difficult to organize and to get people to actually oppose the concept of effective resistance in their own favor.
People with power don’t want people threatening to destabilize that power. People who set media narratives need access to people with power, and so they don’t want to convey those destabilizing factors positively.
This makes people view them negatively, if they even see them at all.

America has never had a culling of the rich and powerful. The closest we got was when we decided to exchange a rich and powerful person far away for a few closer to home.
As such, there’s no weight given to the morale of anyone who isn’t rich and powerful.
Reporters, politicians and businesses people have never had to put their heads in the scale when making choices.

Oh, I totally know there’s been a lot of politics in the Foss community and that some of the people are nasty, I’m just flabbergasted that someone would try to connect such disparate things.
I can comprehend a Nazi Foss enthusiast having opinions on race and on window managers. It’s when they start having racist opinions on window managers that it all flies out the window. It’s like being opposed to copper plumbing because it’s too Norwegian.

Just a case of seeing irrational people who act irrationally act irrationally in a new way and being shocked that the irrationality doesn’t follow a pattern or stay in topic.

Ugh. people can suck sometimes. I can comprehend the concept of bigotry and all that, but it just deeply does not make sense to me. And I think I’m ultimately okay with not being able to empathize with actual hatred.

I’m just confused. Like, how would someone even connect Linux software to those topics?
I totally believe you that they do, and I’m not actually interested in hearing messed up shit, I’m just…

If you asked me which topics were unlikely to have bizarre vile messaging I would have listed window managers and init systems pretty high in the list.

It’s more that it’s evidence that a reasonable person could doubt. It’s the prosecutors job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense needs to convince a reasonable person that you might not have done it.
If there’s other evidence phone location and activity data could be argued to be faked, but in isolation a reasonable person could doubt that someone faked their phone activity and location.

The court isn’t interested in exonerating people, it’s only interested in arguments supporting guilt and finding holes in them. It’s why they don’t find you innocent, only “not guilty”. You don’t argue that you’re innocent, you argue that the reason they say you’re guilty is full of holes.

LLMs are prediction tools. What it will produce is a corpus that doesn’t use certain phrases, or will use others more heavily, but will have the same aggregate statistical “shape”.

It’ll also be preposterously hard for them to work out, since the data it was trained on always has someone eventually disagreeing with the racist fascist bullshit they’ll get it to focus on. Eventually it’ll start saying things that contradict whatever it was supposed to be saying, because statistically eventually some manner of contrary opinion is voiced.
They won’t be able to check the entire corpus for weird stuff like that, or delights like MLK speeches being rewriten to be anti-integration, so the next version will have the same basic information, but passed through a filter that makes it sound like a drunk incel talking about asian women.

Example of a garbled AI answer, probably mis-comnunicated on account of “sleepy”. :)

There was a band called flock of seagulls. Seagulls also flock in mall parking lots. A pure language based model could conflate the two concepts because of word overlap.
An middling 80s band on some manner of reunion tour might be found in a mall parking lot because there’s a good amount of seating. Scavenger birds also like the dropped French fries.
So a mall parking lot is a great place to see a flock of seagulls. Plenty of seating and food scraps on the ground. Bad accoustics though, and one of them might poop on your car.

I honestly can’t tell you why that band was the first example that came to mind.

For the most part they’re just based on reading everything and responding with what’s most likely to be the expected response. Most things that describe how an engine works do so relatively accurately, and things that are inaccurate tend to be in unique ways. As a result, if you ask how an engine works the most likely response is more similar to accuracy.

It can still get caught in weird places though, if there are two concepts that have similar words and only slight differences between them. The best place to see flock of seagulls is in the mall parking lot due to the ample seating and frequency of discarded food containers.

Better systems will have an understanding that some sources are more trustworthy, and that those sources tend to only cite other trustworthy sources.
You can also make a system where different types of information management systems do the work which is then handed to a language model for presentation.
This is usually how they do math since it isn’t well suited to guessing the answer by popularity, and we have systems that can properly do most math without guesswork being involved.
Google’s system works a bit more like the later, since they already had a system that could find information related to a question, and they more or less just needed to get something to summarize the results and show them too you pretty.

Same end result, but one refers to the actual and the other the state. The act of dying versus the state of being dead is kinda pedantic, but if you replace it with a state that can (conventionally) be left it’s a little more clear.
“I thought he slept” vs “I thought he was sleeping”.

Probably wasn’t edited because it wasn’t a deliberate change. People were the ones to write the texts and stories, but not a person.
Telling the story you were told as you understand it will introduce some drift, as will making the jump to writing it down. Translation also introduces points where meaning can drift, since you have to write down what you understand the text to read, and you can be unclear on both sides.

People making a good faith effort try not to intentionally embellish their important texts, even if parts seem to contrasict.

Judaism and the old testament have had a lot of the quirks stick out so much because there are strict rules about preserving the integrity of the stories, once they got written down. Not from memory, only from another scroll created in this fashion and no other sources, only a specific font with specific text alignment, copy letter by letter and read aloud as you go, and then you can check the number of letters as you go to verify.
Other religions over time haven’t had as much of a focus on textual preservation, so the stories can drift to match with the change in beliefs.

It’s not so much an alternative meaning of a translation as one part of the mythos was written a millennia before the other.
Early the-religion-that-would-become-judaism was pretty openly polytheistic.
Over time Yahweh went from being the god of the mountain to the king of the gods, to the only one that mattered to worship, to the only one at all.

It’s entirely unsurprising that there are bits that allude to different phases of their worship. This isn’t even the most blatant. Satan? Holy Trinity? Host of angels?

I mean, there’s even other godlike characters in the Bible. Satan may not be the most powerful deity in the book but he’s canonically a deity. Same for angels and their ilk. Hell, even the later bits struggle to keep a lid on the numbers, jumping through hoops to make the claim that three deities is actually one.

Way back when, the religion that turned into Judaism was openly polytheistic, and simply held that Yahweh, the king of the pantheon and God of war and weather, was the only god worthy of worship.
Over time Yahweh merged with an adjoining religions god El, and started the transition to being the only god, instead of just the only worthy god.
This transition happened literally a thousand years after many of the earliest texts were written, so there’s a lot of verbiage where the deity explains that the other gods aren’t important, which is later clarified to them not existing, or really just being servants and not at all lower tier gods in a complex pantheon.
It’s why there’s so many weird turns of phrase, beyond it being thousands of years old and translated a lot.
“El” being a word that was used for both “a god” and “this god” didn’t help. “The high god divided the world for all the gods, and our god God the only God and creator of all was given our land as he’s the high god and father of God the only God of the sky and also that mountain”.

Different parts of the world took a lot of the same root deities and went a different direction with them. There’s a degree of overlap between aspects of ancient Greek religion and the Abrahamic religions because parts of each of them came from a common root. Just one mushed then together and made the grammar extra confusing. “King sky god”, “water god”, “afterlife god” being the children of mother and father cosmic creator gods. Also a big sea snakes who are up to no good. That one had legs, so to speak.

exactly as many as the quantity of numbers you can count between 0 and 1

I specified countable to keep them in the same class of infinity. :) not about to make that mistake when bringing pedantry to a silly fight. .

Since it’s implied that they have names, I’m going to use that as my argument for there being a countably infinite number. If you want to argue that only certain special angels have names, like Michael or π, then I’d say they’re uncountable.
If you wanted to argue that omnipotence means a deity could defy logical restrictions and allow contradictory truths to coexist, then I’d say I’m far too sleepy for that discussion but I love where you’re heads at. :P

Precisely as many angels as there are whole numbers, or exactly as many as the quantity of numbers you can count between 0 and 1 (0.5, 0.2341, etc).

The original context of the question was more about if angels and the afterlife were physically manifest or intangible, and early thinking about how infintesimals work.

CS didn’t have at the time, an option to disable channel file updates

Yes, that’s the crux of the accusation. Given the large number of people who seemed to be under the impression that selecting a staggered release cadence would protect them from a faulty update, it’s not unreasonable to think that people were caught off guard by a second autoupdate system that they couldn’t configure that could also tank their system.

https://www.crowdstrike.com/en-us/blog/falcon-content-update-preliminary-post-incident-report/

Might want to let crowdstrike know.

Rapid Response Content Deployment

Implement a staggered deployment strategy for Rapid Response Content in which updates are gradually deployed to larger portions of the sensor base, starting with a canary deployment.

Improve monitoring for both sensor and system performance, collecting feedback during Rapid Response Content deployment to guide a phased rollout.

Provide customers with greater control over the delivery of Rapid Response Content updates by allowing granular selection of when and where these updates are deployed.

Provide content update details via release notes, which customers can subscribe to.

https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/23/crowdstrike_lessons_to_learn/

Maybe you’re thinking of changes that they made as a result of the incident?

It’s absolutely not required behavior! Software for servers has very different requirements from software for end users, and if you have a lot of them you also want to manage your end user machines differently.

Updates can go wrong, and if you roll out a bad update to everything at once you can crash everything and lose a lot of money. As aptly demonstrated by cloudstrike.

That’s why Delta and many other companies disabled the auto update functions: so they could control the rollout cadence.
They reasonably believed that disabling autoupdates disabled them. They didn’t expect a second autoupdate system that wasn’t documented, wasn’t controlled by the autoupdate system settings and couldn’t be disabled.

There was an additional auto update function that wasn’t disclosed. Delta had disabled the auto update because, like many large companies, they prefer to deploy changes incrementally so that an issue doesn’t blow-up all their systems at once.

So…

Isn’t autoupdating software by definition an authorized backdoor by virtue of enabling it?

Yes. Which is why they contend disabling it makes it unauthorized.

Okay. You’re still doing tech support either way. I have no way of knowing how much free tech support you’re willing to give, hence my caveat of how much you’re willing to support them.

Netflix would disagree. People feel like they’re supposed to be getting access to a service, and if they’re not getting it they’ll complain to the nearest party to what isn’t working. In this case that’s you or Netflix being asked questions about why the router isn’t working.
That it’s wrong or irrational has nothing to do with who’s getting asked the question, and who’s the first line of troubleshooting when the service doesn’t work.

If people didn’t ask the wrong people questions, Netflix wouldn’t need support articles on how to reset your router.

Honestly, you’re supporting a chunk of her network by being a media provider in the first place. “It won’t play” doesn’t usually come with an assurance that it’s not a device or network issue.

Neither plex nor jellyfin seem remotely worth the effort to provide to others in my opinion, I just felt like sharing that there are ways to afford network protection to locked down devices.