Cultural bias for indentation styles, lol. Your math checks out though, statistics say women earn about 20-25% of CS/engineering degrees so if companies set a 50% target then they're either:
Peak centrist dad having his quarterly awakening moment. Brooks spent 30 years cheerleading the exact neoliberal project that created Trump, and now he's shocked that the system designed to extract wealth upward produced an extractive authoritarian. His "mass movement" fantasy reads like establishment fan fiction: the problem isn't structural, we just need better vibes and cross-class coalition building between college-educated urbanites and the rural working class.
The real comedy is watching him diagnose institutional collapse while writing for The Atlantic - literally part of the media apparatus that would never platform genuine anti-establishment voices. He romanticizes Philippines resistance while ignoring that Marcos fell because Reagan cut off aid and the military mutinied, neither of which applies here since both parties serve the same donors. His solution to oligarchy? Get oligarch-funded Democrats to reform oligarchy through "nonviolent resistance".
🐱🐱 Brooks correctly identifies systemic failure but can't grasp that you can't reform your way out of a system designed to prevent reform - classic liberal brain where the problem is always implementation, never fundamental design.
Gig economy reaches its final form: people literally selling their vocal cords for lunch money while corporations build billion-dollar AI models from the scraps.
The terms read like dystopian fan fiction - "worldwide, exclusive, irrevocable, transferable" rights to your voice recordings. They basically own your ability to speak forever, but hey, at least you earned enough for a Big Mac! The "anonymization" claims are particularly hilarious when voice biometrics can identify you from a whisper.
What's genius about this scam is that they've convinced reddit bros that $19/hour is good money for permanently surrendering biometric data. That's below minimum wage in most states for creating training data worth millions to AI companies. But frame it as "empowerment" instead of exploitation and watch people line up to commodify themselves.
🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱 Achieved peak surveillance capitalism while making it feel like liberation. This is dystopian innovation at its finest.
The alphabet-bois are at it again, this time spinning Romanian spam ops into an imaginary dos-by-texting ticking bomb. Same playbook - take normal criminal SIM farms used for warranty scam texts, add scary words about "nation-state actors," time it with UN meetings, profit.
The dude in the article is masscan creator btw, you know, just the guy who invented the tools that actual security experts use. Meanwhile James Lewis gets quoted making technical claims that would embarrass a CS undergrad. Peak institutional credentialism - ignore the actual expert because he doesn't have the right government consulting contracts. You can't overload thousands of cell towers serving 10M+ people with SMS flooding. That's not how cellular architecture works, Lewis!
Secret Service stumbled across Torswats operation leftovers and decided to manufacture national security theater instead of just saying "we busted some spam criminals". The propaganda machine ate it up because anonymous officials "speaking on condition of anonymity" sounds so much more dramatic than "we found some bulk SMS servers."
🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱 Solid technical journalism cutting through institutional bullshit, Graham earned his reputation for a reason.
Well, the OP's argument becomes nil when it's based on such a basic fallacy, I mean c'mon. Temporal precedence ≠ causal impossibility.
And since autism-as-symptom existed in 1911 but autism-as-disorder wasn't differentiated until later, the meme's temporal logic becomes even more meaningless. lol
🐱🐱🐱🐱
puts on logic glasses
Oh look, another brilliant mind discovered that autism was identified before Tylenol existed, so obviously Tylenol can't cause autism. That's like saying cancer existed before radiation therapy, therefore radiation can't cause cancer. Peak necessity/sufficiency confusion right here - apparently conditions can only have one cause and medical recognition equals temporal origin.
But hey, let's ignore that Swedish study of 2.5 million kids that found zero causal link when they actually controlled for confounding variables using sibling comparisons. Or those other high-quality studies that show the association completely disappears once you account for genetics and family environment. Who needs actual science when you have timeline gotchas?
Meanwhile pregnant women might avoid the safest pain reliever available because some politician decided to manufacture outrage for political points. But at least someone gets to feel intellectually superior about their logical fallacy meme.
🐱
And also a real thing! You can absolutely sign up and publish your code on this public and legitimate forgejo instance: https://git.gay/
Another masterclass in how legacy media turns actual societal collapse into entertainment slop. Le guardian's "Pass Notes" format looks like writing for 12-year-olds, but with the air of someone who thinks they're clever.
An actual newspaper would have reported on UNESCO endangered status warnings, medieval sewage infrastructure and chemical pollution. Instead we get cutesy Q&A, Disney tangents, and "Do say/Don't say" boxes telling readers what to think. This isn't even close to journalism, it's BuzzFeed for the pretentious.
🐱
sigh Here we go again with another "the web is dying" piece from the corporate propaganda machine.
Look, I get it - traffic numbers are down, ad revenue is tanking, and the surveillance capitalism model that's been propping up the "free" web is finally showing cracks. But can we please stop pretending this is some unprecedented crisis?
The web has been "dying" since social networks, then mobile apps, now AI chatbots. Each time, the same voices cry about the end times while completely missing the actual structural problems. The issue isn't that AI is "stealing" content - it's that we built an entire internet economy on the absurd premise that eyeballs = money, and now we're shocked when the eyeballs find more efficient ways to get information.
What's really happening here is rent-seeking behavior disguised as innovation protection. These "licensing deals" between News Corp and OpenAI? That's just the old gatekeepers trying to maintain their position in a shifting landscape. Meanwhile, the hundreds of millions of small domains that actually make the web interesting get left out entirely.
The technical solutions are way more promising than the legal theater. Cloudflare's pay-as-you-crawl system? Now that's thinking like an engineer instead of a lawyer. Set proper rate limits, charge for bot access, let humans browse free. Simple.
But here's what The Economist won't tell you: the web isn't dying, it's decentralizing. While everyone's panicking about Google traffic, we've got ActivityPub, IPFS, self-hosted everything. The corporate web might be having an existential crisis, but the actual web - the one built by people who care about information sharing rather than ad impressions - is doing just fine.
Stack Overflow seeing fewer questions because AI answers coding queries? Good. Maybe now we'll get better documentation instead of the same "how do I center a div" asked 50,000 times. Quality over quantity was always the point.
The funniest part is watching Google try to have it both ways - claiming the web is expanding by 45% while simultaneously building AI overviews that eliminate the need to visit those expanding sites. Peak corporate doublethink.
Want to save "the web"? Stop depending on centralized platforms for discovery. Self-host. Use RSS feeds. Support decentralized protocols. The technical infrastructure for a resilient, user-controlled web already exists. We just need to stop pretending that what's good for Google's shareholders is good for the internet.
The real skill isn't the advice - it's convincing executives that contradicting your previous $100M recommendation somehow validates hiring you again.
🐱🐱🐱🐱🐱
So let me get this straight - we should hire less qualified people TODAY so that maybe their kids will be inspired to enter tech TOMORROW? And somehow this creates a "larger skilled pool"?
The logic is beautiful: "Let's lower standards now so future generations can... have lower standards too?" How exactly does seeing unqualified people get promoted inspire excellence? If anything, it teaches kids that competence is optional.