I don’t understand the outrage around the “mean tweet” arrests. The UK has freedom of expression, somewhat more restrive than that in the US with more of a focus on public order, but with limits for things like threats and harassment. If it’s not acceptable to threaten to beat someone up (or threaten to murder/rape/burn down hotel) in person, why should it be acceptable to do it online?

Proof: https://github.com/notepad-plus-plus-mac/notepad-plus-plus-m...

Every single commit says ‘and claude’

That is not necessarily proof.

Sometimes I am too lazy to think of a good commit message, so I have a custom command that tells the assistant to do this:

Commit umstaged changes with a nice clean message summary and no full message.

By default, Claude Code co-signs those commits (which I do not like at all as a default).

The proof is good enough though.

Even if the code was written by author, not bothering to remove co-signed-by part from the commit message (assuming author did indeed wrote it by himself) let alone not writing their own commit message is an indication of negligence to me

Proof no, but you can safely apply occams razor here.

The way this email is worded this would more likely be classified as a Redundancy as opposed to a Firing. So different laws/rules would apply

Big difference though is that in the UK these cameras are publically owned, and the data feeds into a publically owned ANPR database. Whereas Flock cameras are owned by flock and all the ANPR records are stored on their own infrastructure

I don’t believe Flock cameras are used anywhere in the UK?

Pretty much all public cctv cameras that are installed on the side of public roads, like Flock are in the US, are publically owned, either by Police forces, Local Councils or National highways.

Craig Newmark (Craigslist) and Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia) come to mind, both founders could have made platfoms that would have been ad-ridden (and made a boat full of cash) but the founders chose not to

Uhh, Craigslist is literally an ad platform. They just didn't want anything to do with a middleman.

I think we can all agree the "ads" on CL are not even close to the same ballpark as the offerings of ad tech. Like to conflate the two as the same would be the most disingenuous bit of logic that I'd be embarrassed if I were the one to have made it.

iCloud data can be end to end encrypted (https://support.apple.com/en-gb/108756)

iCloud Home video data is ALWAYS e2ee, even without using that setting.

wait till you find out about iLO/iDRAC or vPro

If you are EU based (or other equivalent country with decent data protection laws) there may be a GDPR complaint with them not deleting your data after closing your account under the right to be forgotten

Really only if you ask for your data to be deleted too

> What is the purpose of OpenAI storing millions of private conversations

Its needed for the conversation history feature, a core feature of the ChatGPT product

Its like saying "What is the purpose of Google Photos storing millions of private images"

This is true but why retain deleted conversations?

That's the objection: The court order requires them to retain everything they currently have, even if the user requests that it be deleted.

Because the New York Times sued them and made them.

https://openai.com/index/response-to-nyt-data-demands/

ChatGPT (the app) specifically says they keep deleted conversations for up to 30 days. That's probably why.

yeah but the link states "The 20 million user conversations were randomly sampled from Dec. 2022 to Nov. 2024" so this makes no sense. 2024 was much longer than 30 days ago

Because the court ordered them to retain the records longer than they normally would.