Another option might be that Nth pass LLM output is not as good as (N+5 months)th pass LLM output. At some point before the amount of effort involved reaches that required to do it oneself, the output will reach an acceptable quality level... or so you'd hope, if any of this business is to make any sense.
That original headline is longer than what HN accepts. What editorialized message are you accusing the shorter "Polymarket gamblers threaten to kill me over Iran missile story" of inserting?
For starters, no mention of re-write option. The HN headline makes me assume pre-emptive death threats instead of escalation over dialogue to re-write.
"I will kill you if you do not do X" is still a threat to kill you. All the more so when X is a thing the person will obviously not do. Rewriting the story would destroy whatever credibility they have as a journalist, and probably is literally not even possible assuming they work for any kind of reasonable organization (hey boss, I need you to update that story I wrote so a different set of gamblers win). Also, even if they did update it, they'd probably start receiving death threats from the gamblers on the other side of the bet they just screwed over.
Honestly kind of crazy that you call such an ultimatum a "rewrite option", as if that diminishes the fact that it's a death threat in any way whatsoever.
"Offered a chance to re-write." How is it even possibly to downplay something to this degree? I suppose "I'm going to kill you if you don't wire me everything in your bank account" is not a death threat, because hey, they're offering you a chance to give them all of your money. When someone on the street holds you at knifepoint, they're just offering you a chance to give them your wallet and phone!
When someone makes an "offer" to a journalist to rewrite something in a way that the journalist believes to be untrue in exchange for dropping death threats against the journalist… that isn't a "nuance."
> You just made my point on why it's more nuanced that this author engaged…
As the article clearly explains, the author replied ("engaged") without knowing why his interlocutors were interested in the minor details of the story.
His initial interlocutor ("Aviv") seemed to be engaging in good faith: "Alternatively, if you have information that it was indeed a full missile that was not intercepted, I would be glad to be corrected."
The author was naturally interested in getting the story right, and wanted to understand what his interlocutors might know about it, how they might be misunderstanding it, or why it might be so important to them.
> … and was offered a chance to re-write.
Do you truly believe that an "offer" to rewrite a story in a way that the author believes to be inaccurate—accompanied by death threats—is an important "nuance" that must be conveyed in the headline of a posting about this?
The bill had no traction, "until Oct. 7. The attack that day in Israel by Hamas and the ensuing conflict in Gaza became a turning point in the push against TikTok, Helberg said. People who historically hadn’t taken a position on TikTok became concerned with how Israel was portrayed in the videos and what they saw as an increase in antisemitic content posted to the app."
Here's Mitt Romney explaining that "the number of mentions of Palestinians" was the reason why "there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down (potentially) TikTok": https://x.com/wideofthepost/status/1787104142982283587
> Additionally, if you're defending TikTok because it allowed them to amplify support for the Palestinian cause, it's interesting that TikTok themselves claim that you are wrong, as they said to the US Supreme court that "allegations that TikTok has amplified support for either side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are unfounded". Are they lying here? If so, why should we trust them with control over mass social media? If they're not lying, you are wrong.
The sentence that you quoted from that Wikipedia page came at the end of this paragraph:
Several officials subsequently cited alleged pro-Palestinian bias on the app. While advocating for a ban, Representative Mike Gallagher alleged "rampant pro-Hamas propaganda on the app". Senators Mitt Romney, Josh Hawley, Representative Mike Lawler, and other Republicans have also alleged that TikTok had a pro-Palestine bias, with Lawler even alleging that TikTok was being manipulated during pro-Palestinian protests at colleges. In a filing to the Supreme Court, TikTok's attorneys said, "Allegations that TikTok has amplified support for either side of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict are unfounded."
There's no contradiction if TikTok was telling the truth about its neutrality: not amplifying support for Israel was reason enough to get banned by the United States government, and immediately after Trump's first reprieve a year ago TikTok began flagging and removing "Free Palestine" posts as hate speech (https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/tiktok-labels-free-pal...).
The conspiracy here is the idea that the only reason someone might want TikTok in the US to be under US control is to suppress information about Gaza. The best reason is to have the media that people in the US consume not be controlled by geopolitical rivals through opaque algorithms!
I think there’s a difference between leaving a CP site up for two weeks so you can track the users, versus actively posting CP on legal websites for the purpose of blackmailing third parties into blocking them (“The Bardfinn Method”).
"The Justice Department said in court filings that agents did not post any child pornography to the site themselves"
"The FBI kept Playpen online for 13 days"
"There was no other way we could identify as many players"
I think the normal person would think this is worth while to catch more pedophiles, hence why this would work politically. However, you can read by the tone of the article that even this drew a lot of rage.
Imagine the FBI agents collecting CSAM, uploading it to websites for the purpose of... preventing copyright infringement
In the pilot episode of Banshee (2013), a character has transparent monitors (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PiIhMs4k88) which never showed up again. They seemed higher tech than anything else in the series and I was never able to find information on them.
reply