spl757

The US is currently governed by a dictator propped up by an oligarchy that can only do that because of the Citizens United supreme court decision. Until Citizens United is mitigated, and that appears to be starting to happen as states make laws that state you can't be on the ballot in their state if you take large, anonymous campaign donations from people who will want, and get, a return on their investment. Hawaii is either considering, or has passed just such a law. We don't even need a plurality of states to make similar laws, just the right ones. Look at a chart of campaign spending prior to, and following the Citizens United decision. Spoiler alert, it looks like a hockey stick standing upright.

Trump knows a lot of dirt on a lot of very powerful people, and he likely has dementia. One thing about dementia is that it can cause people to say things they normally would not say. That's a huge risk to those that are afraid he's going to start blurting out these secrets. That makes him a liability to the kind of people that can make anyone worth more dead than alive.

This is obviously pure speculation on my part, but I think it's quite plausible.

These AI companies know by now that there is no real monetization path that will recoup the over 1 trillion dollars invested by these companies. There is a circular spending spree among large corporations paying each other massive amounts of money to try to make the promise of AI real. It's not. Is it neat? Yeah. Is it reliable? No.

Where the money is not coming from are consumers. There is no consumer market for AI that stands a chance of making these companies profitable.

It's a bubble. Just like the sub-prime mortgage loan debacle of 2008. It's going to burst. These companies are large enough that the government will declare them necessary, and will give a large portion of the taxes we pay to these companies to keep them afloat.

Ah yes, the government bailout, and the government will decide who pays the real price. And that will be me, and you and the rest of us that aren't rich.

These AI companies are aware of this, or they wouldn't take the gamble. So I would have to disagree and say that the government is and will be involved in how all of this plays out.

The US has it's mid-term elections this november, and it's possible, and even likely, that the Democratic candidates will win overwhealmingly. The Democrats are not a monolith, either, the Democratic Socialists of America political group is the very progressive part of the Democratic party, they are the ones that are not accepting dark money campaign donations. I do not agree with a lot of the unrealistic things that some DSA candidates have said, but those or the candidates that aren't winning the primaries. There is a giant blue tidal wave coming in November. Trump will become nothing more than a lame duck "president", and he'll likely be impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate and the Justice System will probably be the final arbiter of his fate. That's the way I see it. And I never believed I would be saying what I just said, but the fact is that since trump was elected, the democrats have flipped 31 (at last count) formorly Republican held seats, and the republicans have flipped exactly zero seats from democrat to republican. The American People are not their goverment, especially right now, even though that's not how it was meant to be, but I know one thing, they are fed up and enough is enough.

My comment might have been different if you had said "a software engineer requires a baseline of understanding of software engineering", but that is not what you said.

What you said is "It is because you're unlikely a software engineer and just a learn programming or went through a really bad university.".

Saying he is unlikely a software engineer seems to imply OP is not being truthful, or is outright lying.

I'll take you at your word that it was not your intention to be offensive. If I were communicating in a language that is not my native tongue, I would hope that someone would point out to me that I might be being misunderstood, too.

As far as the wording of the rules, you would have to complain to HN about that if you take issue with it.

not every time. there are people in jail/prison due to the times that the DOJ does not get laughed out of court. I think someone accused of being "antifa" got 100 years to make an example. I don't have the article to site, but shouldn't be hard to find.

Great, so instead of people cutting down flock camera aluminum poles, they will be shooting at flock drones. Not that I'm against that, but you, safety first.

I built something similar to the boxfan and 4 air filters when I'm doing woodworking, especially sanding. They work pretty well for that if you are on a budget.

This part: "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

One way to tell whether an email has been opened or not is to include a 1x1 transparent pixel that is hosted on a server you control. If the email client the recipient is using automatically loads images, you will get a hit to your webserver for the transparent pixel. This only works if display of images is enabled, so it's not 100% reliable. Some email clients turn off automatic loading of any external content by default for privacy, but it still has value and will help you track opens.

Also, set up seed accounts on different email providers and subscribe them to all of your lists, this helps you get an idea for what other people are seeing when they get the emails. If it's going to a seed account at gmail, and getting sent to the spam folder, you can try tweaking the email and work around the issue with some A/B testing.

I've also been hosting all of my own infrastructure including email. I have only used small cheap VPSs and one thing I have learned is that the reputation of the IP address you are assigned may or may not have a history of delivering mail, and it's just luck if you get an IP that hasn't been blacklisted or known for SPAM in the past. I have put off migrating to a new hosting provider and actually just finished that task.

If you set up a new VPS for sendmail email, the first thing you should do is look up the IP address you have been assigned to assess it's reputation. If it's bad, you may be able to be assigned a new IP through some providers, but you can always just spin up a new VPS, check it's IP, and if it's clean, use it, otherwise drop the VPS, create a new one, and check the IP.

Another option is to buy your own CIDR range. The smallest subnet you can buy is a /24, but your addresses will be portable between ISPs giving you complete control over your IP reputation, and the ability to warm up IPs for sending when an existing IP you are sending from starts to get a negative reputation.

Always make sure you set your rDNS or PTR record to match the A record for the mail server's FQDN.

Set up opendkim, opendmarc, and policy-spf or equivalent, make sure your DNS is all aligned properly, and set your DMARC policy to enforce. You can start off enforcing on a small percentage of outgoing email, and if that looks good, set to reject 100% of DMARC failures.

My stack is postfix and dovecot with opendkim, opendmarc, policy-spf, with postgres to hold domains, mailboxes, aliases, etc and some simple scripts to get postfix and dovecot to use the postgres db. I used postgres for reasons not directly related to sending email, so the same thing can be accomplished using something like SQLite or even flat text files. I ended up writing a perl program years ago to manage the whole stack from a single cli command.

I'm not suggesting my stack is anything special. I use the daemons I use because I have been using them for years and understand them very well. If you want something more than just a TUI, there are a lot of options. I still use spamassassin, but I know there are newer alternatives.

The main driver behind how I chose the stack I use is knowing exactly how every part of it works.

Running your own email server without understanding how all of it works is what people mean when they say that you should not host your own email server. It's not enough to copy/paste from a tutorial, because you will run into issues in which something isn't working right, but since you just copy/pasted you have no idea how to fix it.

I worked for an online publishing company that sent a mixture of quality content to double-opt-in subscribers and transactional emails, and moving traffic around on your IPs if you have more than one to maintain reputation. We sent over 500 million emails a month using a combination of self-hosting our MTAs, and also using ESPs in some scenarios in which even the best IP/domain reputation practices aren't enough to get inboxed. Always set up feedback loops and maintain your lists if you are sending newsletters. Set google postmaster tools.

One of the reasons I run my own mail server is that I create aliases any time I sign up for an account on a website that are unique to that site. github@example.com would be an alias that forwards to an actual mailbox that is unknown to the rest of the world. This way I can tell who has sold my email address, or had their mailing list compromised, and I can simply remove the alias to stop any spam going to the real inbox. Doing that can reveal some pretty interesting things about how your information is bought and sold by data brokers.

Thanks for the response. I see it pretty much the same way.

I don't know. Perhaps if you elaborate a little more I can answer.

A couple of things to clarify: I can understand how you see it that way because I wasn't clear enough.

I don't beleive I characterized what I'm asking in the way you are putting it.

I never said that Ukraine is evil. I competely support and stand with the Ukranian Government and it's people, and I think we, as a country, should be supporting them and their fight to not be conqoured.

Clearly, if I post on a technical forum and am asking a question it is because I don't know the answer. I know how I see it. What I don't know is how everyone else sees it, and that's my motivation. I'm wondering if I'm right or I'm wrong, and have faith that the denizens of the internet will let me know one way or another.

I am asking a legit question and not trying to troll. I am, admittedly, agaist the use of AI on the battlefield, but as it pertains to Ukraine they are defending their existence.

It's not so much that AI hallucinates, but the fact that we know it does, and it's being used to make independent decisions to use lethal force against a human on the battlefield today.

At least that is my understanding of one of the ways that Ukraine is asymmetrically winning against a foe in Russia with more resources, at least at the start.

It's how we are using it knowing this limitation it has and the decisions being made about when and where it's being used in this capacity are mostly unknown.

I never said anything about ChatGPT.

And that AIs do aim at intended targets with intent to kill while simultaneously being susceptible to hallucinations is exactly what worries me.

Also, why do people keep talking about landmines? I'm talking about software, you are talking about dumb mechanical things from WWII. This isn't a philosophical question about methods of warfare from the past, but the software that controls the dumb hardware.

I'd prefer a world without war, rather than one that is starting to make the movie Terminator 2: Judgement Day a reality.

I guess what I'm really asking is whether or not it's moral and ethical to use AI that targets autonomously? My understanding is that it's being used that way, but I can't back that up and I'll take your word for it if that's not the case. But it is certainly a plausible scenario. Everyone invested in AI seems determined to put it in everything because they need consumers to want to pay for it, and right now they haven't figured out a way to earn back from consumers the over a trillion dollars that has been put into the AI bubble. I don't have much faith that the people with billions invested don't want return on their investment, and I don't think they care about the consequences necessary to get it back.

edit for clarity

yes, yes it absfuckinglutely is. IMHO

AI drones are being used to autonomously target and kill targets by the Ukraine using technology they have been given. That's real. Right now. That that is happening anywhere on the planet scares me. That's why I keep asking about AI hallucinating, and it's implications when the stakes are life and death.

I'm not talking about a hypothetical. I'm talking about Ukraine assymetrically fucking up the Russians with AI drones.

Perhaps you should be concerned about it. I certainly am. This is deployed on the battlefield and has been for months.

I'm talking about software being allowed to make the decision to put bullets through a human being without any human in the chain except the dead guy.

I'm asking a legitimate question, and only two people have actually tried to make an argument.

Most, like you, have nothing useful to contribute.

please explain how you have discerned that people earnestly disagree with me?

One of the problems with this is companies and governments have invested 1.5 Trillion dollars on the bet that AI would revolution everything and reshape the world. AI companies lose money. All of the money invested is being recirculated among the major players in the game. It's not the people paying money for AI as a product, it's the companies wanting so badly for that to happen that they have created a spending bubble not too dissimlar to the sub-prime mortgage disaster that resulted in the housing bubble to burst. This is no different. AI companies have proven that they cannot make a profit at this point. There's 1.5 trillion at stake, and who do you think is going to be left holding the bag? My guess is the people.

I only run models I can run locally. Perhaps I'm framing my question incorrectly.

AI is being used in contexts that involve life and death. Being right more often is not good enough in that context. If we are going to put AI in drones and have them autonomously acquire and fire on enemies, perhaps the fact that all AI hallucinates at all makes it morally and ethically unusable for purposes in which the stakes are very high, such as life and death.

This is what scares me about it. And also what I was able to accomplish air-gapped with a Ryzen 7 and RTX 3060 12GB scared me.

This is not the kind of thing we should all have to speculate about, someone should have solid answers. Perhaps the fact that some, and maybe most, AI models are black boxes even to those that trained them, should have been the first red flag and that was years ago.

I'm hoping for more than anecdotes. I believe AI is not ready for what it's being used for, but all I get are downvotes and no citations. Maybe all of you are just scared to say it out loud?

Would you trust it to make life and death decisions? Because it is being used in that context. Drones with AI, armed, and with discretion to choose a target and kill it.