I really have to disagree with you there. Football's damage to society, which I no doubt does exist, much less than the damage due to class divide and capitalism as a whole.
Football in England is sometimes demonized by the media, but specifically footballers. Footballers have historically been the punching bag of the low brow media. "Rio Ferdinand on 150k a week does something bad". "Wayne Rooney caught in latest scandal, 200k a week ace in shambles" etc etc. They love to mention how much they earn, but they never talk about how football is one of the very remaining professions which are purely meritocratic. The few professions where talent is enough and offers social mobility. Most footballers are working class and yet they're blamed, and football is blamed too.
But what's so bad about something that brings people together to bond over a game? Hooligan violence isn't really a thing anymore. Gambling is a separate issue. It's not football's fault that people like to gamble. The politicians could make it illegal.
I do think the professional players earn too much, including from gambling. Gambling and football go hand-in-hand. More than half the ads during the game advertise betting. This is obviously a huge part of their business. Politicians could not make it illegal, this is the whole point, because football has control over them.
No they're right. Regardless if one agrees with you or not, doesn't change the fact that your behavior was that of an asshole. I would know since I'm one too.
This was completely unnecessary. I understand why you say it, you like to make people feel bad. But it was being an asshole, regardless of how you try to justify it.
I'll invite to you our ethical sociopaths group if you want to join.
Yes. The issue with Meta glasses and those pendants are that they are designed for concealment, designed to invade the privacy of other people.
Some might argue that mobile phones can also be used to make secret recordings. However, they are not primarily designed for this and it is a side-effect of being a multifunctional tool. However, whenever anyone uses Meta glasses or their pendants in public, one should assume that they may behave maliciously and take appropriate action against such ppeople. Those people will only learn if we collectively decide that punching and breaking their stupid glasses is the right way to handle this.
You say the wrong thing, wear the wrong thing, look disheveled or whatever and the asshole with the KGB glasses records it. Then MoistCunt (always forget the real name) on Twitch makes a "reaction video" and 35 million of his dumb minions hate you forever if you dare to appear on the Internet.
> Mozilla found and fixed 271 vulnerabilities in Firefox 150 while testing Mythos Preview—over ten times more than they found in Firefox 148 with Claude Opus 4.6
Right, but were they using the same methodology and harness? I'm skeptical that they're doing something with the harness - i.e. with Mythos, they pass each file in one at a time, whereas on 4.6 they let Claude Code run loose to find bugs. This would have a larger impact difference than the model itself.
"...After fixing the initial set of issues that Anthropic sent to us in February, we built our own harness atop our existing fuzzing infrastructure.
We began with small-scale experiments prompting the harness to look for sandbox escapes with Claude Opus 4.6. Even with this model, we identified an impressive amount of previously-unknown vulnerabilities which required complex reasoning over multiprocess browser engine code..."
So yeah, Anthropic and Mozilla likely compare "Amount of bugs found by Opus 4.6 during early experiments" vs "Amount of bugs found by Mythos during large-scale codebase scanning".
reply