Looks like brainrot has reached HN too. "0 info about their life" is exactly the reason why one cannot be certain about their story - neither trust nor mistrust is warrented yet.

I'm not sure if your comment is targeted towards the article. In any case, the article itself specifically says that it's not against the sex, but against Meta's hypocrisy most likely driven by ad revenue.

The coordination emerges for second order reasons, sometimes as simple as what the people want to hear even.

So after all there's no coordination, it's about what different media outlets perceive as newsworthy and of value to people.

Is this what you mean?

Because "coordination" means that there's an effort to make different parts of a system work effectively as a whole.

Iris gotta look like iris

What comes first, the name or the design?

Fwiw, it is finicky but the video played after a couple seconds (iOS 18.2 Safari).

What game did you play?

One of their premiere titles - battlefield.

I assume they test in prod on their billion dollar title because it sure felt like a daily stream of nightly builds.

Can't believe that circus has a market cap of 40bn. You kidding me? Their launcher barely does what it says on the tin reliably - launch things

I love it! Keep me posted if you ever get a beta out

For sure. What's a good email address I can reach out at?

I think new-tech/mass-consumer-facing tech is always going to have a liberal bias - that just plays well with the dynamics of getting new users to use your procuct. It's only once a company/organization establishes itself as a mega Corp will we see the conservative idealogy exerting it's want to sustain/conserve the accumulated power.

What if the information could potentially be double edged (helps fight the disease or assist in bio warfare research) and you cannot control the agents that have access to the information? While obfuscation is not the answer, it def. helps.

There is no such information that is not double edged. Information by itself is neutral, and it all depends on what the person using it for. Otherwise one can attribute anyone as potentially malicious when acquiring information. No guilty until proven so.

If even west aligned media says it’s for saving lives, I would trust that the information is indeed so. China already has nukes. I don’t think they need to wage bio warfare in which their own population is likely to suffer (see COVID)

Considering use cases, nuclear weapons aren't the ultimate weapon and a biological weapon could be employed in situations where nuclear weapons are inappropriate. Given the right biological weapon, a state actor (China, the US, or anyone really) could see the possible asymmetrical benefits.

Example: a purely theoretical biological weapon with low mortality but high economic cost and probably reduced military effectiveness. If I'm the country that uses it, I've taken measures to prepare and expect to come out ahead.

Whereas I observe 3 basic use cases for strategic nuclear weapons and only 1 (the last) is possibly comparable.

1/ game over for everyone, we'll launch left and right (Israel, I presume)

2/ I have enough nuclear weapons to make it not worth the price of bothering me (France, maybe China?)

3/ I believe that the combination of my delivery mechanisms and countermeasures give me a chance despite a generalized nuclear exchange (US, Russia/USSR).

Few know what really happened with respect to SARS-CoV-2. (I don't.) But I don't believe that the possession of nuclear weapons makes biological weapons completely 'uninteresting'.