“You’re Going to Have to Trust Us”

Is that anything like “Don’t Be Evil”? (Google motto, 2004. No definition of evil followed.)

Reagan once said “Trust But Verify”. So … where can we do that at? (and who pays?)

I guess that’s okay, if we really got our money’s worth.

/s

Here’s a back-up, science paper on MOF from Nature with measured numbers. 8 liters per KG per day isn’t 1000 gallons until you get to 2 tons … but it’s about 200 liters per out of 25 KG … easily carried.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-58405-9

"The effects of temperature, relative humidity, and powder bed thickness on the adsorption-desorption process are explored for achieving optimal operational parameters. We found that Zr-MOF-808 can produce up to 8.66 LH2O kg−1MOF day−1, an extraordinary finding that outperforms any previously reported values for MOF-based systems… "

Same fella that just told the EU that the US is its child and always will be. Hmmm, how many parents take the advice of their young teenaged kids?

Holding on to one’s preferred human culture and values is not being ‘left behind’ in any sense … they may in fact be ‘left ahead’.

The sooner EUrope has a firm handle on its own IT ecosystem, the sooner it can tell the US to go pound sand. Macron is spot on.

" … Or maybe it was released by ‘ICE-helpers’ trying to get people to stop all of the well-deserved harsh criticism." Oh wait, the NYT is the holy of holies… never mind …

It might get better just before the next election …

"Reportedly.’

That headline may be true. Or maybe it was released by ‘ICE-helpers’ trying to get people to stop all of the well-deserved harsh criticism. By now that’s hundreds of millions of names to go through. Maybe that will help them burn through their remaining funds faster.

Could be that the shittier sites are using tricks to make people hang around them as long as possible?

Also, sites that are ‘strange and a bit obscure’ are probably more likely to require us to take what they report with more grains of salt. They’re likely to have fewer visitors who can call BS on stuff.

I think we’ll have to wait until about 48 days after the House falls on the Wicked Witch of the East.

I think it could change, here in the US … whenever it’s clearly demonstrated that that’s what’s going on … and if parents then pressure legislators (if they can find enough willing to fight corporate interests) to control it. In the meantime, ‘saving the children’ will be up to parents who take measures themselves.

Parents will get the behavior they reinforce. My mom, whenever I asked for ANYTHING I saw on TV, NEVER responded. Kids that scream when the phone’s taken away should NEVER get them back.

Very true, I’ve had whole cited paragraphs removed by non-registered users. Of course, IF you’ve got the time, you can look through the article history pages. For recently embarassed subjects, it’s not hard to spot the deletions over the past month or two, as they’re colored in red.

Wouldn’t doubt it if they did market to kids. TV networks did it for decades, every Saturday morning, with no FCC challenges.

PBS had services for children as well. Were Bert and Ernie or Mr. Rogers ‘addictive’? I have no idea what YT for children is like, but I wouldn’t have handed my kids over to them to babysit without checking them out … frequently. Corporations exist for one purpose. Will government stop them?

“addiction in children’s brains”

I don’t think these corporations deliberately aimed their content at any age group. Kids are not ready for alcohol or cars or pron. Did the corporations care? Probably not. Would they have at one time, here in the US? Yes, back when legislators were answerable to their constituents. At one time the FCC worried about the lyrics in songs on the radio. The population was more uptight about it. Then.

OTOH: I recall times when parents oversaw what their children consumed. They didn’t need to buy them smartphones or laptops, and they could have enforced rulse on their use. Parenting isn’t for everyone.

From the article:

"A total of 178 out of the 3,078 articles came back as flagged for AI … About half of our staff spent a month during summer 2025 painstakingly reviewing the text from these 178 articles…

Far more insidious, however, was something else we discovered: More than two-thirds of these articles failed verification. That means the article contained a plausible-sounding sentence, cited to a real, relevant-sounding source. But when you read the source it’s cited to, the information on Wikipedia does not exist in that specific source."

This is the guy who bankrupted 4 casinos. Clearly what he’s best at.

Cash they’ve got. Jail time for CEOs will work better.

Profit?

Or, ‘P’ as in trickle-down?

That’s a really fancy way to say ‘dumb terminals to the mainframe’ … only without wires.