ru ding ware
LightNews LightNews
ru ding ware
@nvyx.bsky.social
40 followers 140 following 66 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by ru ding ware
noturtlesoup17.bsky.social
Andrew Paul Johnson was arraigned in a Florida court in October on multiple charges, including molesting a child as young as 11 years old.

Johnson dangled the prospect that one of the children could receive money bc...he was entitled to $10 million as part of reparations for his January 6 arrest.
Pardoned Capitol Rioter Tried to Hush Child Sex Victim With Promise of Jan. 6 Reparation Money, Police Say
Pardoned Capitol rioter Andrew Johnson tried to keep a child sex abuse victim quiet with claimed $10 million Jan. 6 reparations, police say.
theintercept.com
November 18, 2025 at 2:44 AM
Reposted by ru ding ware
climatenews.bsky.social
So Pakistan is *paying* Qatar to *not* deliver LNG because even including this penalty payment their solar PV and battery spending is much better value for money and saves them billions.

How fascinating!
November 12, 2025 at 12:23 PM
Reposted by ru ding ware
jessicacalarco.com
If women are underrepresented in STEM, it's at least partly because men like this offer mentoring, then embarrass themselves by assuming their mentees must be into them, then decide the best solution is to cut ties, which sends the signal to other faculty that the mentee must not be good enough.
econmarshall.bsky.social Marshall Steinbaum @econmarshall.bsky.social · 3d
The emails have Summers reporting to Epstein about his attempts to date a Harvard economics student & to hit on her during a seminar she was giving.
November 16, 2025 at 12:13 AM
Reposted by ru ding ware
econmarshall.bsky.social
The emails have Summers reporting to Epstein about his attempts to date a Harvard economics student & to hit on her during a seminar she was giving.
November 15, 2025 at 9:48 PM
Reposted by ru ding ware
jcoglan.com
you cannot make a formal distinction between good and bad outputs from LLMs in the same way as separation of code and data lets you fix every other variety of "injection" attacks
September 23, 2025 at 12:14 PM
Reposted by ru ding ware
faineg.bsky.social
Here is Joseph Weizenbaum on the “hubris so bombastically exhibited by the artificial intelligentsia” who believed, even back in 1976, that the human (and animal) mind can be adequately simulated by machines:
It is much too easy, especially for computer scien-tists, to be hypnotized by the "fact that linguistic utterances are representable as linear strings of symbols. From this "fact" it is easy to deduce that linguistic communication is entirely a left-hemisphere affair. But human speech also has melody, and its song communicates as well as its libretto. Music is the province of the right hemisphere, as is the appreciation of gestures. As for written communication, its function is surely, at least in large part, to stimulate and excite especially the auditory imaginations of both the writer and the reader. We may never know whether the conjecture that a part of us thinks in terms of symbolic structures that can be only sensed but not usefully explicated is true or false. Scientists, of course, abhor hypotheses that appear not to be falsifiable. Yet it may be that, under some profound conception of truth, the hypothesis is true. Perhapsit helps to explain why we remain lifelong strangers to ourselves and to each other, why every word in our lexicon is enveloped in at least some residual mystery, and why every attempt to solve life's problems by entirely rational means always fails. But the inference that I here wish to draw from my conjecture is that, since we cannot know that it is false any more than that it is true, we are not entitled to the hubris so bombastically exhibited by the artificial intelli-gentsia. Even calculating reason compels the belief that we must stand in awe of the mysterious spectacle that is the whole man-I would even add, that is the whole ant. There was a time when physics dreamed of explaining the whole of physical reality in terms of one comprehensive formalism. Leibnitz taught that if we knew the position and velocity of every elementary particle in the universe, we could predict the universe's whole future course. But then Werner Heisenberg proved that the very instruments man must use in order to measure physical phenomena disturb those phenomena, and that it is therefore impossible in principle to know both the exact position and the velocity of even a single elementary par-ticle. He did not thereby falsify Leibnitz's conjecture. But he did show that its major premise was unattainable. That, of course, was sufficient to shatter the Leibnitzian dream. Only a little later, Kurt Gödel exposed the shakiness of the foundations of mathematics and logic itself by proving that every interesting formal system has some statements whose truth or falsity cannot be decided by the formal means of the system itself, in other words, that mathematics must necessarily be foreverincomplete. It follows from this and others of Gödel's results that "The human mind is incapable of formulating (or mechaniz-ing) all its mathematical intuitions. I.e.: If it has succeeded in formulating some of them, this very fact yields new intuitive knowledge."® Both Heisenberg's so-called uncertainty principle and Gödel's incompleteness theorem sent terrible shock-waves through the worlds of physics, mathemat-ics, and philosophy of science. But no one stopped work-ing. Physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers more or less gracefully accepted the undeniable truth that there are limits to how far the world can be comprehended in Leibnitzian terms alone. Much too much has already been made of the presumed implications of Heisenberg'sand Gödel'sresults for artificial intelligence. I do not wish to contribute to that discussion here. But there is a sense in which psychology and artificial intelligence may usefully follow the example of the new-found humility of modern mathematics and physics: they should recognize that "while the constraints and limitations of logic do not exert their force on the things of the world, they do constrain and limit what are to count as defensible descriptions and interpretations of things."" Were they to recognize that, they could then take the next liberating step of also recognizing that truth is not equivalent to formal provabili-ty. The lesson I have tried to teach here is not that the human mind is subject to Heisenberg uncertainties-though it may be-and that we can therefore never wholly comprehend it in terms of the kinds of reduction to discrete phenomena Leibnitz had in mind. The lesson here is rather that the part of the human mind which communicates to us in rational and scientific terms is itselfan instrument that disturbs what it observes, particularly its voiceless partner, the unconscious, between which and our conscious selves it mediates. Its constraints and limitations circumscribe what are to constitute rational-again, if you will, scientific-descriptions and interpretations of the things of the world. These descriptions can therefore never be whole, anymore than a musical score can be a whole description or interpretation of even the simplest song. But, and this is the saving grace of which an insolent and arrogant scientism attempts to rob us, we come to know and understand not only by way of the mechanisms of the conscious. We are capable of listening with the third ear, of sensing living truth that is truth beyond any standards of provability. It is that kind of under-standing, and the kind of intelligence that is derived from it, which I claim is beyond the abilit… We have the habit, and it is sometimes useful to us, of speaking of man, mind, intelligence, and other such universal concepts. But gradually, even slyly, our own minds become infected with what A. N. Whitehead called the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. We come to believe that these theoretical terms are ultimately interpretable as observations, that in the "visible future" we will have ingenious instruments capable of measuring the "ob-jects" to which these terms refer. There is, however, no such thing as mind; there are only individual minds, each belonging, not to "man," but to individual human beings. Thave argued that intelligence cannot be measured by ingeniously constructed meter sticks placed along a one-dimensional continuum. Intelligence can be usefully discussed only in terms of domains of thought and action. From this I derive the conclusion that it cannot be useful, to say the least, to base serious work on notions of "how much intelligence may be given to a computer. Debates based on such ideas-e.g., "Will computers ever exceed man in intelligence?" — are doomed to sterility. I have argued that the individual human being, like any other organism, is defined by the problems he con-fronts. The human is unique by virtue of the fact that he must necessarily confront problems that arise from his unique biological and emotional needs. The human individual is in a constant state of becoming. The maintenance of that state, of his humanity, indeed, of his survival, depends crucially on his seeing himself, and on his being seen by other human beings, as a human being. No other organism, and certainly no computer, can be made to confront genuine human problems in human terms. And, since the domain of human intelligence is, except for a small set of formal problems, determined by man's humanity, every other intelligence, however great, must necessarily be alien to the human domain.
August 28, 2025 at 11:17 PM
Reposted by ru ding ware
lumber.trading
April 3, 2025 at 10:59 AM
Reposted by ru ding ware
leftistlawyer.com
For years, when I asked my fellow white Americans why the US has the largest carceral apparatus in the world by a wide margin, with 4% of the world's population and 22 percent of the world's prisoners, with mass incarceration mostly impacting communities of color,
March 6, 2025 at 9:57 PM