taco

I don’t think an article writing for an audience that needs API defined is the place to get the finer details. Also, does it really matter? Keeping secrets out of the repo is pretty basic stuff, so there’s a lack of fundamental information security awareness.

I’d bet all the monies that there’s a bunch of unencrypted spreadsheets with enough data to steal millions of identities on some idiot’s Google Drive or whatever, and a bunch of it’s been shared with commercial LLMs without any of our consent. Our personal data’s being handled less securely than the average corporate SharePoint site’s plans for the next pizza party.

I meant actual data. You’re refuting a claim backed by several cited studies in the OP.

Have anything behind that? The paper we’re discussing has 4 citations in agreement, so I’m not so sure that most people say the opposite.

The more important detail is that it’s 16 experienced developers. If there’s going to be an advantage with AI development tools, it’s going to most likely be seen with junior devs with a much wider gap between current and peak performance. This was my first thought reading the article, and it’s called out in the study.

Sailing the high seas solves those problems too. Forego Amazon Prime and just steal your shit from their cargo ships.

Has more to do with the distribution than the definition. If everyone were either a moron or genius, nobody would be average without changing the definition.

Posts about the initiative and what they’re trying to do could absolutely happen without the rest of it. What a silly comment.

If these tech CEOs are supposed to be geniuses why do they keep falling for the same shit?

At least part of the explanation is that none of them are actually geniuses, despite what they may tell you.

It’s strange how I’ve seen almost nothing about the initiative itself and what it’s trying to accomplish, but dozens of posts about the signature count and comments about the youtube drama.

Also how everyone on the Teams call discovers you’ve got them.

They definitely had what I was looking for…

We the jury find the defendant: “not guilty.”

At least they preserved the BSOD acronym.

They haven’t even contacted the people eligible yet, but already have the $177m figure. The vast majority of people who are part of these class actions aren’t involved (or often aware) until after the settlement is agreed upon. It’s based on how many people were potentially impacted, not who signed up. Your main premise is bunk.

We should be demanding more, or refusing to join.

You can only demand more by refusing to join, then suing independently from the class action. Opting out without following up with your own lawsuit is just dividing the settlement up among fewer people without having any impact on what the company is paying out. The settlement is already $177m; why would AT&T care if it gets divided among 100 people or 100,000,000?

Headline:

…how to file a claim today

Article:

For now, there’s no official settlement site to enter your information. If you’re eligible, you’ll get an email or letter over the next few months. Settlement documents say that notices will start going out on August. 4. When that happens, there will most likely be a site to file a claim.

What a clickbaity shitpost.

no one should be initiating or joining any of these class action suits

The only real downside to doing this is losing the ability to sue individually. What’s your success like so far in your suits?

Maybe that’s how we know it wasn’t an intern or ai posting this time.

I think it’s all some level of FUD until there’s an example of it being called out as a reason for denial. The fields have been on the application for a while, but I know someone who recently came in with a private ig profile and a vk profile that hadn’t been used for anything but chat. Wasn’t mentioned at all along the process beyond being on the application.

That may change soon, but it also might just be rhetoric from dipshits playing to their dipshit base.

Fair enough, though that’s an ask from the State Dept., not a demand from the embassy, as indicated in the OP. It’s an important distinction because the embassy holds the authority at that point in the process. They can ignore the guidance altogether or demand everyone open their profiles. They’re probably more likely to do the latter now, but they could’ve done this two years ago too.

Demanding the usernames for the past 5 years and being suspect of anyone not on social media isn’t a new, that was my main point. I don’t think many people appreciated how shitfucked our visa processes are, even before the current “administration” helping.