I don't know, I've had good experiences getting LLMs to understand and follow architecture and style guidelines. It may depend on how modular your codebase already is, because that by itself would focus/minimize any changes.
> In my opinion, inappropriately leaked information should probably be considered private.
How is that relevant to BSky's terms of service? The information was public and did not identify the person.
> But even if not, Singal says the same leaker directly contacted him with a new leak, which he also published.
I notice that you didn't say whether this new leak was private information, or whether it was also already public knowledge, or whether it in any way identified a person.
I think this entire thread has run its course; if it's not this detail, it'll be another, as a few others have already moved goalposts further down the discussion than the ones you're setting here.
But if you wish to sate personal curiosity, it is in his Substack, linked from the first link I posted, which was itself from the link posted by its GP.
The only thing that seems remotely related to your claims is this:
When the office of Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey began an investigation, [Reed] said she handed over the spreadsheet, after scrubbing out the personally identifying information that could spark HIPAA problems. She shared a copy of it with me as well — it contains 17 alleged detransitioners or desisters and 60 allegedly worrisome cases.
What's your problem with what happened exactly? Is it your position that your "private information" cannot be used, ever, to expose what some see as a medical scandal, even though it cannot identify you or in any way be associated with you? What does "private" even mean to you if sharing this dataset did not violate HIPAA?
> presenting nukes as a practical and economically viable technology.
The practicality and economic viability are entirely under our control. We made them impractical and uneconomical here, while they are practical and economical in France and China.
> The entire legal system has to be radically changed with far less punishments for almost everything if you have perfect, or even 30% of the way to perfect, surveillance.
Prosecutorial discretion means they can just collect evidence and choose not to charge you unless they want to leverage you for something. This already happens, but universal surveillance means it can literally happen to anybody, because everybody breaks the law in some way due to how many laws we have.
Discretion is the real problem I think. It seems extreme, but maybe discretion should be eliminated: if you commit a crime you will be charged. This will at first result in way too much prosecution, which will lead to protests and hopefully repealing laws and we'd end up in a better place where the law is understandable and predictable by mortals.
Epstein did not need to be the blackmail man. His function in the machine was as a Hoover, vacuuming up as much about as many as possible in case some of it turned out to be useful to the machine operators at some later date.
If you're going back decades, then Palestinians started started multiple civil wars against Jews before the founding of Israel. It's almost as if the Jews knew they couldn't peacefully coexist with most Palestinians on the same land.
That is simply wrong. Palestinians were first attacked by the British, supporting the Zionists, in the 1930s. Then, in 1947, during plan Dalet, Israel attacked Palestine and the surrounding Arab states.
Before that, of course, they colonized Palestine under the shield of the British empire.
An easier way to disarm this argument is: Why did the Zionists come and displace the Palestinians? And who would respond peacefully if you try to displace them?
That's rich. If "talk of colonization" is propaganda, why did Herzl write about "important experiments in colonization" in Palestine? and why did Jabotinsky say "Zionism is a colonization adventure"? Why did Max Nordau say: "the existing and promising beginnings of a Jewish colonization shall be looked after and maintained till the movement will be possible on a large scale"?
Why would the founders of Zionism engage in "ahistorical propaganda" against themselves?
Zionism is one of the most brutal examples of colonialism ever, and the founders of Zionism don't disagree. Zionists are equivalent to Nazis in their treatment of the "other" and their belief in a pure ethnostate, the consequences of these beliefs are exactly the same. And young people are finally waking up to this.
I never mentioned jews and the point remains : It is untrue to say that Hamas started everything on 7th of oct and it is untrue to say that they were the first.
Stop diverting attention from the causes of what happened.
reply