Guess they've never seen all of the statues of Athena, Artemis and Aphrodite. You don't get as many nude female statues because it was usually considered obscene for women to be naked in public.

But the Greek male statues were fully nude and depicted ripped mortal men because they were made in line with Aristotle's idea of good art being educational. Those were arguably the marble version of "git gud, scrub".

If there were more male "perfect" body statues at the time, which we can't establish because many have been lost over the millennia, it might actually be evidence that men were considered less attractive and they needed more body shaming to fix it?

What neat little creatures. The Green eye also is bioluminescent. Have 3 short videos: https://www.mbari.org/animal/strawberry-squid/

He actually said the phrase "ensure a fair deal for working people". Who thought it was a good idea to put that in the speech knowing he was going to be fully dressed in the spoils of exploitation? You'd think they'd at least temper it with the comparative term "fairer" if the more sensitive wardrobe option was truly off the table.

Notice there is no double sig in there. Also note that Rodnovery is a neopagan religion, associated with nationalism. It's the Slavic equivalent the Norse pantheon fetishism you see in the West in the form of Odinism.

You should assume they're Nazi symbols because they are, even if Nazis stole a lot of symbols from everyone else. The sig was first adapted into the double sig in 1929 to be used as the Schutzstaffel logo

I think he's saying that the call for "order, authority and economic freedom" is something out of the Nazi playbook, which it is. But if that's the case, he really should have used at least a few more words to do so.

Link is to a shit pdf on a proton drive. It's a basic description of the Google auction house. The prices they list are largely driven by the bids advertisers place, but that's not to say Google doesn't charge a bigger minimum for different demographic segments, they very much do. As does Facebook etc.

For example, one reason that parents are worth less is because of the products they listed. Diapers cost less than business lawyers, so the margins are much slimmer, so advertisers aren't going to bid as much for an ad placement.

It does miss one thing that is, in my opinion, one of the more revolting aspects of their auction house. As a bidder your dollar is worth less than a big company's dollar, even as little as one tenth. You could bid a million dollars on an ad space that Apple only bid $100001 on and you'd lose. That gap is dynamically calculated (at least in part) based on comparative search rankings.

Here's the text without their ad at the end:

The Price of Free Google

What the Ad Industry Pays to Target Americans

A Proton Mail analysis of 54,216 advertiser-defined profiles across the U.S.

The price of your attention

Every user has a price

Every Google search triggers an invisible, real-time auction where advertisers bid for access to your attention. These bids are calculated in milliseconds based on how likely you are to spend. This is how the system decides what you are worth to advertisers.

Proton analyzed 54,216 advertiser-defined profiles across 251 U.S. cities using real ad-market pricing.

● Highest-value user: $17,929/year
● Lowest-value user: $31/year

That’s a 577x difference. This disparity is not an anomaly — it is the business model.

“Google doesn’t just build a profile from the information you knowingly provide. If you sign up for services, click ads, or ignore others, that creates signals the system can use to infer much more than you realize. It can start with age or interests, then expand into assumptions about income, family status, political leanings, or religion.
When the system isn’t sure, it tests those assumptions by serving different ads, links, or recommendations and watching how you respond. It doesn’t just tracking who you are. It’s constantly learning, so it can price access to you more precisely.”
— Eamonn Maguire, Director of Engineering, Machine Learning & AI

Who the system values most — and least These two profiles illustrate how the same system assigns radically different value.

$17,929/year
● 35–44, male
● Bozeman, MT
● Not a parent
● Desktop, heavy user

High-intent, high-margin services:
● business lawyer
● home renovation
● golf courses

$31/year
● 18–24, male
● Fort Smith, AR
● Parent
● Android, casual user

Price-sensitive, lower-margin searches:
● cheap diapers
● family apartments
● toddler clothes

Same system. Same country. 577x difference.

Value is not distributed equally
The gap between the average and the median shows that a small number of high-value users disproportionately influence the system.

The top 10% of users generate 43% of total value.

● Average value: $1,605/year
● Median value: $760/year

Most users are worth far less than the system’s top performers.

How your value is calculated

Your value is constantly recalculated

Your value is not fixed. It is continuously recalculated based on signals that predict the likelihood of a commercially valuable action.

These signals include:
● What you search
● When you search
● What device you use
● Who you are inferred to be

High-intent searches — such as legal services, insurance, or financial products — command significantly higher prices than general browsing or informational queries. Your value can change from one moment to the next depending on what you do. In this system, behavior matters more than time spent

The signals behind the price

Your device changes your value

Device usage has a measurable impact on how users are valued.
● Desktop: $2,894/year
● iPhone: $1,338/year
● Android: $585/year

Desktop users are worth nearly 5x more than Android users — even when everything else is the same.

These differences reflect observed behavior — including conversion rates and commercial intent — not the cost of the device itself. Your device becomes a proxy for purchasing behavior.

Parents are systematically valued less

Parental status affects how users are priced within the system.

Non-parents are worth ~17% more on average.

The gap increases during peak earning years:
● 25–34: +24%
● 35–44: +34.5%

Having children reduces your perceived commercial value.

Same age — same location — same device. Different value.

Value peaks in midlife

User value is highest between the ages of 25 and 44.

This period corresponds with:
● Major financial decisions
● High-value purchases
● Career-related services

As users age, overall value declines — but does not disappear. For users 65+, approximately 75% of value is concentrated in:

● Health
● Real estate
● Financial planning

The system adapts by narrowing focus rather than reducing targeting.

Gender is not a primary driver of value

Gender has a measurable but limited impact on how users are priced within the ad ecosystem.

Average values across genders are broadly similar — with differences in the single digits.

Differences in value are driven primarily by how advertisers price categories of demand — not by gender alone. Higher-value industries — such as finance, legal services, and B2B technology — tend to influence outcomes more strongly than identity itself.

As a result, gender can affect value indirectly, but it is not a consistent or defining factor.

Where you live affects what you’re worth

Local economies shape how much advertisers are willing to pay for access to users.

Location alone can dramatically change what you’re worth.

Highest-value markets include:

1. Edmond, OK
2. Bozeman, MT
3. Naperville, IL
4. Santa Fe, NM
5. Durham, NC

Lowest-value markets include:
247. Greensboro, NC
248. Gulfport, MS
249. Fort Smith, AR
250. Lowell, MA
251. West Valley City, UT

More usage means more value

Frequency of use acts as a multiplier on user value.

● Heavy users: $3,611/year
● Average users: $843/year
● Casual users: $362/year

Heavy users generate nearly 10x more value than casual users. More usage doesn’t just increase your value — it multiplies it.

This creates strong incentives to maximize engagement.

I'm going to need more of these. Many more.

I think you did great. I don't think there's much point beating yourself up about this, that's a while bunch more ticks than crosses. If anything, I might suggest that you didn't do enough for your own personal well-being but... Life does that.

Seriously, I know you're annoyed about this, but congratulations on getting as much done as you did, it's genuinely an achievement.

Sadly this is slop. The pics appear to be from Homer Spit, Alaska, where there are legitimate gatherings of eagles (which is kind of weird in itself), but these pics aren't one of them.

They've added a lot of noise to the image to fit the body cam theme, but if you look closely, some of the eagle's heads are just... off.

Here's a photo of the real thing in the same general location as consolation.

A few months ago I mentioned in a thread about Piefed there were questionable system design choices that indicated that other parts of the system should be carefully examined for how they’re handling and sanitizing input. I'm assuming someone discovered one of the places that this was actively exploitable.

From what I've seen of the code, although Python is not my specialty, it might be worth delaying reactivation until it can demonstrate that it is at least somewhat resistant to the OWASP Top 10, especially Injection.

Irresponsible disclosure is annoying, but vastly better than discovery and exploitation by those who aren't going to disclose at all.

Speaking in north-west France on Saturday to mark the 82nd anniversary of the D-day landings

“Sadly, today, different European beaches are stormed by different, dangerous ideologies ... Beaches in Spain, Italy, Greece and Bulgaria, boats and men arrive. When will European capitals do something about that invasion, or is it too late? I pray not, and I believe not,” he said.

Jesus, he said it literally to the French in the American cemetary.

"Speech on immigration" really undersells the actual Christo-fascist hate speech that this is. France should start doing something about the invasion of dangerous ideologies by deporting Hegarty and banning re-entry.

If I saw this, I would not assume that Gawker, WikiLeaks, or FOX Weather would be included in a blocklist called "No-QAnon". The list itself might not be smuggled, but it's not accurately representing itself either. If it has simply evolved over time, then it needs to be renamed or split into separate blocklists.

Additionally, if someone installing this changes their mind or realizes that what they received is not what they expected, then requiring them to either directly modify the database or click "remove" over 3000 times is arguably a dark pattern.

There are two surprising aspects of this to me. Firstly that the employees feel confident enough to express concern about Palantir's actions in official channels. I would have thought that the nature of their work was obvious enough that this would be a cultural taboo and therefore self-censored. I guess some of them have limits to suspending disbelief for what they had likely internally framed as "work for the benefit of national security" or "job pays too well to care".

The second part is that not all of this official channel discussion was immediately wiped by Palantir, but perhaps they also relied on the premise of self-censorship in preventing these conversations at scale.

Either way, I'm somewhat relieved there's someone at Palantir worried about this at all. The more of them who are worried by this, the more leaks we'll see.

Congratulations. There's something about convincing a cat you're a source of enjoyment that is ridiculously rewarding. You earned those purrs.

I hope he remembers that he enjoyed this experience so you can both keep enjoying future purring!

No surprises here. Their cash flow suggests they were heavily leveraged on crypto (Edit: or other unusual spending, the crypto part is speculation, they officially claim to have no crypto), -776% y/y change for investments in 2026. Not as bad as their 2023 -1,023%, but their new CFO has an uphill battle ahead of her.

I can see them being on the 2027 casualty list. They've been pushing AI hard internally the last year or so, which caused me some issues at my workplace after their misplaced confidence led them to call out my niche as an "opportunity" they had "mostly solved". Spoilers: They hadn't then, visibly still haven't now, and will have less chance doing so by adding more AI because it is particularly terrible at this niche.

Bless you for trying anyway. They're truly precious, and I appreciate holding tiny sleeping babies takes absolute priority over photos.

Let's not bury that image content.

23,019 potential vulnerability candidates -> 1,900 Reviewed by external security firms -> 1726 confirmed positive -> 467 reported to maintainers

Why only review 1900? How were these chosen? Were the 1259 that were not reported to maintainers just duplicates or were they even valid?

23,019 potential vulnerability candidates -> 1,129 reported direct to maintainers by Anthropic, at their request (May contain false positives)

They just spammed the maintainers with these without reviewing them?

1129 + 467 = 1596 total reported to maintainers -> 1451 acknowledged by maintainers

Does acknowledged mean they said they received the report or does it mean they validated the report? Because it looks a lot like "received", when accounting for that prior 1259 gap and the fact the bulk of them weren't reviewed prior to sending.

Subsequent analysis of these vulnerability candidates has identified that 1,726 are valid true positives. As many as 1,094 flaws are assessed to be either high- or critical-severity.

But that 1726 was reduced to 467 come reporting time. Which makes that 17% hit rate possibly... 4.7%?

MYTHOS IS TOO POWERFUL TO RELEASE /s

Never hallucinate or make anything up.

I know you already mentioned this part in your post, but I'm still completely taken aback that it's just in there like this - as though it wouldn't be in the system prompt if it stood a chance of working.

If I were the kind of person to be shilling LLMs and posting prompts, I would still be ashamed to share this one. It's a tacit condemnation of both the tool itself and the tool posting it.

In the latest episode of "behold the power of Mythos" from The Hacker News - Claude Mythos AI Finds 10,000 High-Severity Flaws in Widely Used Software

I distilled it so you don't have to.

Of these vulnerabilities, 6,202 have been classified as high- or critical-severity flaws impacting more than 1,000 open-source projects.

That 10,000 count didn't even survive until paragraph 3.

Subsequent analysis of these [6202] vulnerability candidates has identified that 1,726 are valid true positives.

Ah fuck. 1726. But wait, a bad infographic has entered the ring!

23,019 potential vulnerability candidates

Ok now we're talking.

1,900 Reviewed by external security firms

Wait, what? Why those? Why only those?

1726 confirmed positive

You couldn't even cherry pick the valid ones?

467 reported to maintainers

Where did the other 1259 go? Maybe this other part of the flowchart will go better...

1,129 reported direct to maintainers by Anthropic, at their request (May contain false positives)

1129 + 467 = 1596 total reported to maintainers

Most of them just spammed at open source maintainers. Right. Maybe Anthropic's media release has the goods!

1,752 of those high- or critical-rated vulnerabilities have now been carefully assessed by one of six independent security research firms, or in a small number of cases by ourselves

Slightly lower than the 1900, but ok, whatever.

Of these, 90.6% (1,587) have proved to be valid true positives, and 62.4% (1,094) were confirmed as either high- or critical-severity

1587 is lower than the infographic's 1726 confirmed positives.... But 10% of 10000 high sev is still something, right?

On maintainers’ request, we sometimes disclose bugs directly, without further assessment. We’ve now reported 1,129 such unvetted bugs, of which Mythos Preview estimated that 175 were high- or critical-severity.

I'm sure those maintainers enjoyed that 16% high+ sec rate based on Mythos' own estimations. But wasn't that 1129 the bulk of your reports?

We estimate that we’ve disclosed 530 high- or critical-severity bugs to maintainers so far. There are a further 827 confirmed vulnerabilities (estimated as high- or critical-severity in the same manner) that we’re aiming to disclose as quickly as possible.

530 is only a third of the reports you made to maintainers...

65 of those have been given public advisories

The infographic says 88.

I'd ask if they were massaging their financials like they massaged 65 advisories, but we know they are.

23,019 potential vulnerability candidates of all severities, 65 advisories. If you printed the code out and drunkenly threw darts at it you'd probably hit the same level of accuracy.

OpenAI and Anthropic right now: oh no

Part of me wants to believe the whole S&P special treatment announcement was designed to bait them into disclosing numbers, but the more realistic side of me believes this is a nervous backpedal because they've realized the inevitable consequences of allowing this blunder to play out in full.