So, Sony uses Yoti — and it’s using a callback method so users can complete the Yoti verification flow by scanning QR code on their phone, similar to how OAuth2 allows? But if your phone has Graphene, the flow won’t work and instead triggers notification to local authority that someone tried multiple times to “bypass” it or something? Basically forwarding their own sever errors, due to incompatible clients, to the authorities?

Is that the right understanding?

How is Sony connected to this? I only see references to the Yeti and Graphite OSs. (Misspelled because some commenters say they can’t say the name of an Os for some reason?)

I have been, by focusing on enabling team members to use it exactly like how leadership wants. You want them to use more AI? Okay… they need Agentic harnesses that can do work for them locally. They need MacBook Pros to run the models. They need cloud keys to test different frontier models for different loads. They need governance, observability, repeatability, scheduling, human-in-the-loop…

I’m going to show them that anyone can build a bridge, but only an engineer can build a bridge that barely works. On top of that, I’m going to show them that they’re wrong in believing they want a bridge. All it should take is seeing that they got exactly what they wanted without getting anything that they wanted.

Watch enough Drey Dossier and you’ll start to really despise that Larry Ellison guy. The guy is excellent at doing really big moves from the shadows. Like collecting data on everyone in a country, or combining healthcare with military data, or… or so much stuff…

Melted.

If you park on the street, and it’s level, might not notice until you’re up the street a bit.

I don’t know what I’m talking about, don’t take this seriously.

Shit. I almost hired you to my top law firm.

If steam wants lower prices, they should subsidize the cost of games for their users. The problem is solved.

It’s not that hard.

1. The supreme leader
2. The Alibaba guy who was kidnapped
3. The guy who stood in front of a tank with his groceries

That’s gotta count, right?

Edit: shit, they said alive.

Edit 2: ByteDance CEO, because he was at Trump’s inauguration wasn’t he?

You can’t fuck open source. Open source obliges the status quo, it is not subject to the status quo. Because once it’s source-available, it can’t be made unavailable. This stands because you can’t control who does what with a copy of your code, which is a good thing. I’m not talking about OSS licensing, which is also a good thing DGMW. I’m talking about your fundamental ability to broadcast your ideas, even in code, to other people’s machine via the web. That’s a powerful and fundamental ability.

To really drive the point, we need to fully socialize the open source stack. Nothing “open” should be hosted on GitHub, for example. That’s not “open,” it’s “approved.” Open is open regardless of whether you or anyone else would like to approve it or not.

A bigger disaster than dumping it into the atmosphere?

Interesting. See, I was thinking closer to the mechanistic function of capitalism wherein productive assets (“capital”) are primarily owned and controlled by private individuals/organizations. My brain was thinking, what would a political system look like if you replaced “productive assets” with, instead, “political assets.”

Is it a political ideology of capitalism — which honestly sounds quite weird and interesting — or is it political romanticism of capitalistic economics?

Capitalism is a vehicle. It’s only really a problem when you have aggressive (or drunk) drivers. Would do us wonders if corporations were co’ops, even under capitalism. Because the people driving direction are the same people employed by the company — I.e., the only group that is de-facto simultaneously concerned with both the company’s success and the workers success.

Not only that, but they believe the active enzymes in the microbe can be optimized and engineered, then mixed into a liquid substrate. Becomes an enzyme-based CO2 filter with the byproduct of Calcium Carbonate, which can be used in concrete. The article talks about filling trucks with these and passing the emissions of coal-fired power plants through them.

It reminds me of Prototaxites.

You’re making several unsupported jumps.

First, the body-hair study does not prove a biological preference. At most it shows that a sample of men from a particular culture preferred a particular presentation of women.

Second, your tattoo source doesn’t even support your conclusion. You started with “most men find tattoos attractive if they’re small and hidden” and somehow arrived at “men prefer plain skin.” Those are not equivalent statements.

If a man finds a small tattoo attractive, then by definition he is not preferring plain skin in that case.

Third, “women spend money removing body hair, therefore men biologically prefer it” is a terrible argument. By that logic, because women spend billions on makeup, hair dye, cosmetic surgery, high heels, push-up bras, anti-aging products, and fashion, all of those preferences must also be biological. That’s obviously not how social norms work.

Finally, you’re treating “feminine” as though it’s an objective biological category when much of what people call feminine changes dramatically across time and culture. Different societies have preferred different body shapes, skin tones, hairstyles, body hair practices, tattoos, piercings, and cosmetic standards.

What your sources support is a much narrower claim: some men in some populations expressed certain preferences under certain conditions.

What they absolutely do not support is your repeated claim that women are most feminine when they have completely unmarked skin or that this is some universal male preference.

You are overstating your sources.

A study or article saying some men in some contexts find some tattoos attractive is not evidence for a universal male preference, and it definitely is not evidence for a biological law. “Most guys” is still a blanket claim built from a narrow sample, a specific culture, and a specific framing of attractiveness.

Same problem with the body-hair point: a preference in one study does not become “men prefer plain skin on women” as though that were some objective truth. It only shows that a sample of participants responded a certain way in a certain setting. That is not the same thing as proving what men generally want across cultures, ages, and individual tastes.

Also, “small tattoos in hidden locations” is not the same as “men prefer unblemished skin.” That is a different claim entirely. You are quietly inflating “some respondents liked discreet tattoos” into “men prefer women with no marks,” which is a leap, not a conclusion.

The honest conclusion is much narrower: preferences vary, and your sources do not justify a universal statement about what men like.

Your position is off putting, though. I can’t just sit here and try to educate you, because your romanticism of what’s effectively premature biological attributes is gross.

“Most guys” doesn’t mean anything. An average is a pretty bad argument when it comes to making blanket statements about people’s preferences. It ignores culture, health, age, … so many things. But I guess the point is, “it seems like 6 out of 10 people respond yes to this prompt.” It’s shallow, meaningless… It barely makes a scientific statement, let alone defend your assertions. Most guys are personable enough to also not meet such broad statements, if you supply just an ounce of real-life context.

Your results also don’t demonstrate anything beyond cultural bias in a potentially biased study.

if the brain interprets something as something else, it means the brain is wrong. So… again there’s no blemish. It’s clearly the other brain which has issues — the “observer” — not the tattoo bearer.