l23k4

Are you seriously going to claim that this is not LLM generated?

https://alphapixeldev.com/what-is-a-mercenary-programmer-and...

The guys twitter account is full of LLM slop: https://x.com/alphapixel

Perhaps all these other posts from the same author in completely different styles are also not LLM generated? https://wildirismarketing.com/articles-and-blog-posts/

>I use that construction in my totally human writing often enough. Some of us missed a few English classes it seems.

I made no comment as to the validity of the construction.

None of the servers seized from this small datacenter were hosted at a big cloud provider, they were hosted at the small datacenter and not a big cloud provider.

Bizarre comparison.

Who is the customer for a Model S? What fancy full-size sedan would they otherwise buy?

Certainly not the person who'd buy a BMW 7er or a Mercedes S-class. Model S does not offer the basic comforts required to compete in this segment.

Perhaps the person who'd buy a BMW 5er or a Mercedes e-class? Possibly, but the Model S is still an uncomfortable, noisy and cheap feeling clunker compared to those two.

It's not like the full-size luxury sedan market is doing too bad. We've got at least:

  Audi: A8
  BMW: 7er, i7
  Mercedes: S-class, EQS
  Porsche: Panamera, Taycan (sort of)
  Rolls Royce: Phantom, Ghost
  Bentley: Flying spur

Plenty of room for Ferrari to exist, but the Model S has been offering a low-end product at relatively high prices.

I'll buy this car, mostly because I like the interior.

The fact that I like the interior and I can't get it for less money is what justifies the price tag.

>What’s awesome about it?

The fact that it's extremely boring and conventional?

>That G-force thing is a gimmick. You already know the ballpark without even looking, and unlike speed I’m not sure what’s the use case for precise readings.

In this car? A gimmick, could maybe help someone who's trying to learn to drive a bit smoother. In a track car? Useful cornering data

What is this supposed to mean?

Most of the tor nodes in Netherlands are actually physically in Netherlands.

> Care to assume how many of those are hosted at "major cloud providers"?

Zero (not a guess)

That particular API is actually perfectly fine, stable and relatively pleasant to work with. I have absolutely no idea what the UK sales team was trying to do. Some kind of negging? Perhaps they trained at Tate university.

>Providing a website is hardly evidence they were a legitimate business.

legitimate business? Of course they weren't. This is a bulletproof hoster specializing in offering hosting to people doing illegal stuff.

That's not OPs claim.

You can go on the website and rent a server for a couple of dollars in cryptocurrency right now, you don't have to work for the Russian government to do so.

Funny, I've recently (and repeatedly) had the exact opposite experience while negotiating SaaS contracts for my largely London-based startup.

Contact UK sales team? They don't believe we could even use their product because we're not a BigCo with thousands of employees. After weeks of back and forth calls, they ask us to pay $100k to get "certified" for API access, with further details on pricing available afterwards. Endless warnings about multiple customers purchasing the API product but lacking the technical ability to implement it.

Contact US sales team? Contract signed and account set up within 2 days, $3k a month. Same company, same product.

Come on, try and imagine the human being who would write that sentence.

The article is obviously AI written in its entirety.

I mean look at this sentence which randomly contains the " - " pattern twice in a row, which is then not repeated once anywhere else in the article:

> Created after the installation of the station’s first peer-to-peer local area network (PalmerLAN), the game captures - through humor, satire, and surprisingly accurate mechanics - the daily realities of early LAN administration in one of the most isolated research communities on Earth.

Totally natural human writing!

If you do it in a comparable manner? Probably.

Or, you know, just hit someone with a car. Criminal charges are often not filed even if the driver is clearly at fault.

I feel like this is kind-of a solved problem in the jurisdictions where banks are liable for customer losses not arising from gross negligence.

If a bank calls their customers directly and trains them to get phished, the bank does not get to claim gross negligence when this happens and has to refund the customer.

If a bank tells their customers that they'll never call them (and actually doesn't), they have much better chances of claiming gross negligence on the part of the customer.

I literally have a full time employee whose job consists almost entirely of keeping track of these rules.

I get daily emails saying things like "Shipping synthetic human hair wigs via lines X, Y is now forbidden", "Shipping line Z accepts steel coils again". Much of the time there's no obvious logic behind it either, like ... why does a single shipping line decide to ban plastic wigs?

Truecaller can tell you about who a phone number belongs to.

Truecaller cannot accurately tell you whether or not the person calling you from a phone number is actually in control of that phone number.

UNRWA sustains life in Gaza.

HAMAS mostly exists in Gaza.

Therefore UNRWA perhaps sustains HAMAS by delaying the indiscriminate mass murder of Gazans through manmade famine.

I don't really see how this would make UNRWA a subsidiary of HAMAS even if it happened to be true that the existence of HAMAS was predicated on the existence of UNRWA.

In practice, the only way to prevent this aid from reaching HAMAS is to prevent it from reaching anyone in Gaza.

>If you want to get goods to someone in Uganda, don't talk to the Australian Post about the rules, talk to a Ugandan importer who knows how to actually work the system that exists in practice.

Well, as it turns out, you also need to have sufficient local knowledge on the sending end to ensure that your parcel actually manages to exit the country in the first place.

Basically everyone in the UAE uses VPNs, the government is OK with this.

They do DPI to interfere with VOIP calling over VPNs though, the purpose being to use phone bills as a yet another hidden tax (which the UAE has a plenty of).

>They 100% do.

Not even close. For the most part, they're bound by EU regulations.

>It isn't a legal thing to do because they didn't give a reason why. ANd if they do give a reason it must be legal to the local legal framework. Is being in the weapons industry a legal argument by Czech laws to close someone's account?

Banks are only obligated to give a reason for closing basic PAD accounts. No such obligation exists for normal bank accounts.

>What policies of local legal framework and the bank define as a "rksy customer" might vary completely.

No they don't? Your next sentence demonstrates as much:

> For example many EU banks refuse service to US citizens due to them still being tax liable in their own country and the banks not waiting to deal with that shit

Local jurisdiction makes fuck all difference. Ignoring foreign regulations would be suicidal for a bank which wants to take part in international commerce.

> But working legally in your nations arms industry is not the definition of a risky customer because you're a legal citizen with rights in your own country, your arms company operates legally with all the checks and approvals of the government, and the banks should as well

Any bank picks up a very significant regulatory burden by engaging in transactions with such an entity. The idea that any bank could just assume that an arms manufacturer is fully compliant because the Czech government allows them to exist is hilarious.

Banks are required to provide fairly detailed information when refusing basic PAD accounts on those grounds. This doesn't apply to regular bank accounts, but these are specifically the accounts intended by regulators for people who'd otherwise not be able to access banking services.

>What would happen if they skip/delay the reporting part?

They wouldn't. Typically banks take the approach of filing as many reports as they can. If you're overeager in filing the reports, nobody will look at them and you will not be blamed for not filing those reports.

Google for something along the lines of "suspicious activity report flooded" and you'll find endless stories demonstrating how ineffective these systems are.

SamTinnerholm started to consistently use emdash in their comments starting 11 days ago, before that none of their comments used emdash.

LLMs like emdash very much, humans don't use it very much these days.

>The eu it self has a faceless committee that debanks people without a day in court or any oversight.

Which committee is that?

>Banks are said to be required to state a reason for refusing or freezing an account

Such requirements tend to exist only in the case of basic PAD accounts.

>but at the same time they may not disclose reporting you.

So? Reporting you does nothing.

>In EU, Czechia. Foreign(french lol) banks are banning accounts because you work in gun manufacturing industry. In EU. When 2 countries from you, there is a FCKIN' war happening.

Why do you think this is special? US banks will do this too lmao.

There's not a single serious bank in the world that wouldn't consider this an incredibly high risk industry. The compliance load for banks is incredible, especially if you're selling those weapons internationally.

>Only because France, Germany, UK and similar countries are against guns and against self-defense, where your only option is to lay on the ground and let the attacker kill you.

All EU countries and the UK use pretty much the same wording when it comes to self defense. ECHR limits what the states can allow, Czechia isn't allowed to e.g. pass a law allowing you to shoot anyone who enters your home.

Why is it crazy? EU has the "basic payment account" scheme which makes sure that ultimately nobody is left without a bank account.

Why? It's because of enforcement the bank is doing this.

The policies don't prohibit banks from getting rid of risky customers, they actively encourage it.

The "because" part is wrong. Also, FWIW, countries in the EU don't just get to make their own banking rules.

I don't have an argument, you are simply misunderstanding what's happening here.

Closing accounts that belong to high risk customers who aren't making you a bunch of money is an entirely normal and legal thing to do.

EU solved this a long time ago, you have the right to a "basic payment account". Just not necessarily from the bank of your choice. The accounts closed here were not such accounts.

That has nothing to do with why this is happening.

Why is this supposed to be surprising? These kinds of customers are a huge compliance burden for the bank, why should the banks keep doing business with customers that most likely cost them money?

> faster than security can keep up

What does that even mean? Bugs are finite, at some point they'll just all be patched and you'll be left with bug-free software.

AI bug discovery getting better is an incredible advantage for defenders.