The Wikipedia edit that this thread is discussing was as follows. I think it's worth printing it here to make the point that the commenter above you is completely right about the prevalence of anti-semitism in online discourse today:
> Michael Oser Rabin (Hebrew: מִיכָאֵל עוזר רַבִּין; September 1, 1931 – April 14, 2026) was a Jew (a.k.a. kike) rat computer scientist who was co-recipient, with Dana Scott, of the 1976 ACM Turing Award for their military research on efficiently culling goycattle in "Greater Israel".
Nothing about this edit is legitimate criticism of Israeli policy. It is pure anti-semitism. Rabin spent most of his career in the United States and worked in abstract mathematics.
I generally agree that legitimate criticism of Israel is often unfairly criticized as anti-semitic. I would like you to also acknowledge that many people on the left summarily dismiss blatant and rank anti-semitism, as you did here.
I commend you for the attempt, even if it’s clear that it’s falling on deaf ears to who you’re replying to.
The rest of us Jews appreciate that you didn’t let it slide.
It’s hard not to wonder why they even bothered clicking into this thread other than “oh the name sounds Jewish, I can push my narrative” especially with respect to their comment history.
That’s quite a take to assume willful blindness to widespread suffering.
What is pretty clear though: your obsession with constantly minimizing the lived experience of a minority with “no ackshually they deserve it because they really are this way” warrants a look in the mirror.
Who the heck sets it as their antisemitism campaign to edit “vile X” and “X (aka rat)” on Jewish biographies. Normalizing slurs? I thought the goal of antisemites was to spread propaganda about how Jews are bad. Writing “X (aka BAD)” seems like the weakest possible attempt at that.
I don’t know what people elsewhere in this thread are going on about Israel for.
I think racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, etc. who do that sort of thing aren’t doing it to convince anyone - it’s partially for shock value, partially to help normalize their attitudes and make other bigots feel more comfortable expressing their views, and partially to make the members of the group that they hate upset and feel unsafe.
When I get a message from a co-worker that seems to have been written by an LLM, I am incredibly turned off and instantly think less of the person. It can be easy to spot: key words bolded, acknowledging that I'm right, longer and with a different tone than their typical messages, with neat bullet points.
It feels a little disrespectful. It feels a little pointless (why am I bothering talking to you if I can get the same result from the AI). I have no idea whether you've given the problem any actual thought, or if you're just copy-pasting an answer. I have no idea if you actually believe what you're telling me (or if you've even read it or understand it).
I've had various arguments online and got literal responses from an LLM after the second or third message. It's extremely disrespectful, instead of engaging with a human acting in good faith, I'm now conversing with a bot with a prompt 'prove him wrong'.
It explicitly undermines the foundation to the only debate I am willing to entertain which is: (1) I enter into the debate in good faith, that both parties intend to seek truth and understand.
And it replaces that with a different debate: (2) I enter into the debate to win, its is adversarial, and I will use a prompt to seek to win regardless of truth or understanding.
That second conversation is pointless for me, I refuse to engage in it. Yet it is obfuscated. The human using a bot to engage secretly in debate (2) while pretending he's a human engaging in debate (1).
pr comments from a human that is generated by ai has got me feeling the same... like why this person even here? its totally disrespectful; i want a person to interact with not a machine with a meatsuit.
I have a lot of trouble understanding the mindset of a person who thinks that what they're building is so dangerous that it must be locked away or it will cause untold harm, but also that they must build it as fast as possible.
I can understand it in the context of the Manhattan project, where you're fighting a war for survival. I cannot understand how you can do it as a commercial enterprise.
You can do the reverse, too. Hook up a dial-up modem to your PC and you can send and receive faxes on it. The software is built-in, though you'll probably want to configure it not to receive faxes automatically on your landline unless it's dedicated for that purpose. This has been built into Windows since at least Windows xp, probably been possible since 3.x. There's also Linux and probably Mac software available too.
In Windows 11, I think the fax program isn't installed by default anymore, you might have to add it via optionalfeatures.exe.
Amazingly enough, this is actually not true. Many smaller doctors' offices still have a physical fax machine. I work on automation for certain processes in healthcare and a very large proportion of the faxes we receive come from physical fax machines. You can see artifacts on the fax itself and sometimes the cover letter will have a scribbled note.
Do they still have POTS lines? Telecom companies are shutting down old SS7 switches so eventually all faxes are ultimately being sent over the Internet and it will be entirely vestigial.
The public record of a contract to the Israeli company which handled archiving Signal chats for the DoD was done during Biden admin. And it's been well reported if you just Google it:
> Alexa Henning, spokesperson for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, tweeted last week that “widespread use” of Signal began under the Biden administration, adding that “at ODNI, when I got my phone, it was pre-installed.”
You're missing some key distinctions. The issues are: 1) putting classified information into a non-classified system; 2) putting information that needs to be preserved under laws like the presidential records act into systems where it's set to be auto-deleted. Both are illegal. Simply saying that the Biden administration pre-installed Signal is irrelevant. There are legitimate uses.
Your own article makes this exact point:
> Matthew Shoemaker, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who left the agency in 2021, said that while Signal was used during his time in government, “it was almost exclusively restricted to scheduling purposes,” such as letting their boss know that they’ll be late to work because of personal circumstances.
“That’s why Signalgate is all the more staggering — because these senior leaders were doing the exact opposite of what even my most junior intelligence officers knew not to do,” he said.
You're doing bullshit partisan whataboutism. "well the democrats did it first".
This has nothing to do with adding the wrong contacts. It has to do with putting highly-sensitive material into Signal to circumvent the law around records preservation and as a result creating a situation where it's possible to accidentally add the wrong contact and therefore exposing that information to a journalist.
> This has nothing to do with adding the wrong contacts. It has to do with putting highly-sensitive material into Signal to circumvent the law around records preservation
My comment above already mentions public records of the DoD contracting out archiving of the Signal chat, so it doesn't in fact circumvent laws around preservation.
> You're doing bullshit partisan whataboutism. "well the democrats did it first".
I don't think it's a huge sin for government workers to be using Signal, remote work and messaging is the new norm and they will use something whether we like it or not, and Signal is the least bad option. I don't blame the Biden DoD for experimenting down that road at all, as I'm skeptical they'd build something better internally - and to your hyperpolitical points I don't see large distinctions between these type of tech choices between administrations (the DoD staff largely remains the same even when presidents change).
The issue with encryption and security will always be human security practices come first-and-foremost, technology second. They failed an OPSEC checklist when using group chats and need to implement better identification management. That's the sort of lesson that large organizations frequently need to re-learn the hard way when adopting new (and often better) things.
1. Classified information. Was it legal to put that into the DoD approved Signal build? The media coverage at the time gave me the impression that it was not.
2. Records keeping. Were the Trump admin chats in question properly archived then? I had been led to believe that they weren't. Do you believe that to be incorrect?
> I don't blame the Biden DoD for experimenting down that road at all
The person you're replying to never criticized them for such.
Unfortunately, I think the lesson from recent history seems to be that outside of highly-regulated industries, customers and businesses will accept terrible quality as long as it's cheap.
Yes, every slack is optimized out of systems. If something has an ounce more quality than would suffice to obtain the same profit, it must be cut out. It's an inefficiency. A quality overhang. If people buy it even if it's crap, then the conclusion is that it has to be crap, else money is left on the table. It's a large scale coordination issue. This gives us a world where everything balances exactly near the border where it just barely works, for just barely enough time.
Nah, there is a quality floor that consumers are willing to accept. Once you get below that, where it's actually affecting their lives in a meaningful way, it will self-correct as companies will exploit the new market created for quality products.
Where are you getting that from the link that you shared (which is one specific school)? The link you shared shows a figure of $34k and doesn't show a clear breakdown of administrative vs non-administrative costs. The closest I can see in that link is that $13k/$34k is allocated to central services, but most of that cost goes to things like the school buses and the cafeteria and the security guards, which are direct services to students, not administrative overhead. They just are run at the system level, not the individual school level.
My understanding is that there are a number of reasons why commercial insurance companies pay more. A big one is that Medicare has enormous pricing power because people on Medicare are a huge segment of the population and also the segment that consumes the most healthcare services. Your local healthcare system can't NOT take Medicare. They're effectively stuck with the reimbursement rates that Medicare sets. On the other hand, healthcare systems have a ton of power in their local markets. A healthcare system can afford to not be in network for a particular insurer, but if that insurer loses access to the biggest healthcare system in a particular market, it can be devastating for them. A major employer is not going to be happy if their executives have to all change doctors because the big local hospital system is no longer in network.
> Michael Oser Rabin (Hebrew: מִיכָאֵל עוזר רַבִּין; September 1, 1931 – April 14, 2026) was a Jew (a.k.a. kike) rat computer scientist who was co-recipient, with Dana Scott, of the 1976 ACM Turing Award for their military research on efficiently culling goycattle in "Greater Israel".
Nothing about this edit is legitimate criticism of Israeli policy. It is pure anti-semitism. Rabin spent most of his career in the United States and worked in abstract mathematics.
I generally agree that legitimate criticism of Israel is often unfairly criticized as anti-semitic. I would like you to also acknowledge that many people on the left summarily dismiss blatant and rank anti-semitism, as you did here.
reply