> But Europeans are diverse mutts as well.

Speak for yourself, because

> If their great-great-grandfather was Scottish, they then assume everyone before him was 100% super duper Scottish

That is, indeed, the correct assumption to make. I would recommend having a look at the work done on population genetics at Oxford University’s People of the British Isles project[1]. Even their homepage should relieve you of some misconceptions:

> The People of the British Isles (PoBI) project was initiated by Sir Walter Bodmer in 2004, in an effort to create the first ever detailed genetic map of a country. The United Kingdom’s history bristles with immigrations, wars and invasions, so the PoBI researchers faced a tremendous task in investigating how past events impacted the genetic makeup of modern British people.

> Results included a map (image below) showing a remarkable concordance between genetic and geographical clustering of our samples across the United Kingdom.

[1] https://www.peopleofthebritishisles.org/

Ethnicity and nationality are not the same, though they have until very recently overlapped to an enormous extent. Someone might well be of anglo-saxon ethnicity and be American.

Being British myself, I find it fun to tease the yanks about all manner of things, but actual animus of the kind you’re displaying just looks like a massive chip on the shoulder.

That's the outcome of cherry picking the good things and ignoring the bad, not their decision making structure. Try asking critics of the EU what they don't like (a quick search on here will provide plenty of examples) and you'll see laws that are not good for ordinary people. Repeat with any jurisdiction, making sure to choose the opposite of your preconception (e.g. ask proponents of the USA's system what they like about it) and you'll get a better, less biased and more challenging view.

I seem to remember a test (I believe I read it in the Kevin Dutton book on psychopaths) where psychopaths would be shown a video of people walking down a corridor, and they were more likely to choose vulnerable people than either chance or the norm.

Whichever it was, they could spot a vulnerable person just from their manner while they walk.

I wouldn't say they were drawn to vulnerable people, though. Like anyone else, they assess opportunity and effort, and these people are easier than others for getting what they want.

Edit: I found one of the studies -

> Key takeaways

> Higher Factor 1 psychopathy scores correlate with improved accuracy in assessing victim vulnerability based on gait.

> Inmates with elevated psychopathy scores consciously utilize gait cues to judge vulnerability more frequently.

> Psychopathy's Factor 1 traits, like manipulativeness, drive effective victim selection among violent offenders.

> Victims often display distinct gait characteristics that predict perceived vulnerability to assault.

> Understanding body language cues may inform victimization prevention strategies for at-risk individuals.

https://www.academia.edu/22213822/Psychopathy_and_Victim_Sel...

Remarkable. What does vulnerability mean in this context?

Edit: They asked people how many times they had been victimized, which they defined as "worse than bullying".

> Twelve video clips of unsuspecting targets walking from Wheeler et al. (2009) were used in the present study. The targets were undergraduate stu- dents, of whom 8 were women and 4 were men. As described in Wheeler et al., targets were unknowingly videotaped from behind as they walked from room A to B, to capture natural gaits. The targets indicated whether they had ever been victimized and how many times they had been victim- ized in the past (after the age of 18). The wording of the question was very broad, given the numerous types of victimization that can occur, and the effects of any victimization are relative. If participants asked for clarifica- tion, they were asked to think of victimization as being equal to or greater than bullying. Each target’s gait was coded by two independent judges according to the Grayson and Stein’s criteria (1981). As discussed in the original Wheeler et al. study, interjudge reliabilities were high for all gait characteristics (kappa = .77 to 1.00). Essential to the idea that body lan- guage cues indicate vulnerability, targets coded as displaying vulnerable body language in the Wheeler et al. were more likely to have self-identified as a victim, rho (11) = .68, p < .05.

---

Edit 2: The study references a very similar study from 32 years earlier.

> The original 1981 study by Grayson and Stein was incredibly simple. It involved setting up a video camera on a street in New York City, filming people (60 persons) as they walked by (between 10:00 AM and 12:00 pm over a three day period), and then showing the footage to convicted offenders (12 of them), whose crimes involved violence, and asking them to select those individuals who they would target/victimize (on a scale from 1 to 10), in order to discover if there were any identifiable non-verbal cues that were commonly picked up on/identified.

https://www.bostonkravmaga.com/blog/criminology/that-grayson...

So the 1st study focused purely on target selection and gait analysis, while the 2nd one interviewed the potential targets to see how that lined up with their actual history of being abused.

Now the billion dollar question of correlation vs causation: seems to go both ways, as usual. Neurodivergent people walk differently (and have differences in motor areas of the brain), but also trauma changes your posture and movement...

Something I occasionally do is ask it to extensively comment a section of code for me, and to tell me what it thinks the intent of the code was, which takes a lot of cognitive load off of me. It means I'm in the loop without shutting off my brain, as I do have to read the code and understand it, so I find it a sweet spot of LLM use.

> The only way any company can justify the risk of publishing Someone Else's Speech is if that risk is literally zero.

Or, you know, employing customer service agents. The non-employing of such also allowed them to become billionaires so it seems kind of fair.

You might point out how this will protect children and what the trade offs are. You might also address the point that the same people who keep trying to do these "protect the children" attacks on privacy seem to be one or two steps away from people like Epstein. They didn't need to decrypt anyone's communications because they were the recipients - what did they do about it?

It seems many of them continued to "hang out" with him.

I would say it's more like "this is the best we have, not necessarily good", hence the reference to idealism and justice, much like the sentiment in Churchill's famous quote, "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried".

Does it still do the "you can't install via sudo, that's a security risk" while not allowing a non-admin install? I laugh and I cry.

Why does anyone trust that project to understand security?

They're being asked, in this case, to solve a problem that business has already shown able to solve. More competition will also solve that oligarchy problem too.

No, more competition does obviously NOT solve oligarchies. It is what we see RIGHT NOW. It is OUT THERE NOW. Oligarchs buy up competition and either incorporate their ideas or make them disappear if they threaten their established business models.

Why are you keep repeating this myth?

The only relevant player who might break up oligarchies before they become to powerful is the state they operate in.

> Why are you keep repeating this myth?

Why do you write like someone's crazy uncle on Facebook? The caps are inappropriate here, as is the hysteria and hyperbole.

> Oligarchs buy up competition

You realise that those advocating for free markets are against oligarchy, right? That they say that in most, if not all cases, regulatory capture and monopolies are the causes of lack of competition, right?