When you see that sort of nonsense coming out of a well respected org such as MIT as a puff piece then you know that you had better avoid being "undesirable" and start being a better person. This bloke: https://www.technologyreview.com/author/patrick-howell-on... is one role model for you who can trot out this sort of drivell without whincing.

I understand that one must dumb down somewhat when communicating with the hoi polloi and other generally unwashed types but this is an article that clearly explains to children that we can't trust open source code because we can read it at any time. You can't blindly go around trusting something you can delve into and review yourself. You should allow adults to do that for you.

I'm acutely aware of many of the flaws that turn up in FLOSS - I follow dozens of bugzillas etc and mailing lists that exhaustively discuss how to deliver next month's bugs effectively and on schedule. I have some insights into the sheer effort that say jra goes to to screw up my Samba experience or some of you lot do with delivering Linux and that corbet bloke and his dodgy website.

I also get to tread the Patch Wednesday (yes weds not tues - "let he who is without fear ...") treadmill with absolutely no idea what is going on but I do it anyway: yay - CVEs with serious sounding flaws and some jolly exciting write ups but I can't look at the code - its a bloody cargo cult thing. Getting to the bottom of some of the weirder corners of Windows is quite a challenge - for example: AdminSdHolder - who knew, until you knew! What a load of cobblers.

https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/ask-the-directory-... - Why would you? That's wankery in action - We've bodged a solution/papered over some cracks and expect you to do some weird shit. Soz/lol, that's the thing you engage when you do things like create a service account that can only change passwords without being a domain admin. You fiddle with perms on a LDAP container object to give rights to a user type object and ADUC can't do that sort of thing (lol).

Anyway, I doubt that the US military hasn't noticed where their software is coming from nor how it is written.

Posted Jul 14, 2022 20:07 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

> > Detecting hate speech is a good proxy for terrorist radicalisation. In 2018, we thought we could detect hate speech with a precision of typically 92%, which would mean a false-alarm rate of 8%.

The follow-on to that is good, though ...

In 2022, now we understand the problem better, our ability to detect hate speech has gone DOWN...

Cheers,
Wol