The tickets are all electronic now and they can already do it. Most artists don't want them to.

What about the internet today is healthy such that anyone could point to Section 230 as the reason why?

The internet is unhealthy today specifically because the law elevates platform editorializing to the same level as individual freedom of speech.

I agree, but I'm not sure the person I'm responding to would. I cannot imagine how anyone could describe today's internet as healthy.

It's not sneering. Anthropic constantly puts itself out as some sort of moral arbiter when they are no different from any other business, as your quote suggests.

Those are?

Yeah, and that's why they got of rid of their commitment to safety so they can stay cutting edge?

Okay? They're exactly the assholes everyone says they are. That's the point.

Did you read most of the article or what?

All 12,000 words. Kept expecting it to take a turn toward something beyond pre-judgment and insinuation. Instead it unfolded as a cautionary tale, of the power of a premature conclusion to close an investigator’s mind to reasonable alternative possibilities. About escalating commitment to an early hunch, even as it leads you down an investigative dead end.

For example it sure seems like his mountain of circumstantial evidence fits better with the theory that “Satoshi” could be a pen name for a small group of people—maybe even the small group whose history he traces and whose styles he has trouble teasing apart—rather than one “suspect” (as he calls it). But we don’t even really weigh that possibility seriously.

So, like—why are we coming at this one guy by name and spooky hacker photo in the New York Times, with the suggestion that he has $110 billion under his mattress? All these speculations and arguments have been done over and over—what does this reporting add that’s worth 12,000 words?

The colorful journey down a dead end, fine—but leave it at “My Quest,” don’t do the weasel subhed “the trail of clues […] led to Adam Back” to insinuate that it proved what it set out to prove. Or even added anything significant to the well-trodden record.

>For example it sure seems like his mountain of circumstantial evidence fits better with the theory that “Satoshi” could be a pen name for a small group of people—maybe even the small group whose history he traces and whose styles he has trouble teasing apart—rather than one “suspect” (as he calls it). But we don’t even really weigh that possibility seriously.

Does it? I didn't come to that conclusion. Do share!

>So, like—why are we coming at this one guy by name and spooky hacker photo in the New York Times, with the suggestion that he has $110 billion under his mattress? All these speculations and arguments have been done over and over—what does this reporting add that’s worth 12,000 words?

Well, they identified this guy and the reporting here is better than the others I've seen in the past. This article obviously has nothing to do with what past writers wrote, so I don't really get the point of pretending like it all comes from one place.

>The colorful journey down a dead end, fine—but leave it at “My Quest,” don’t do the weasel subhed “the trail of clues […] led to Adam Back” to insinuate that it proved what it set out to prove. Or even added anything significant to the well-trodden record.

Yawn

So it's just a coincidence that they can't edit user records? They can't get another agent to fix that, even?

That's called ear training and it's crucial. I don't think all ways one can play and call it "practice" are equal

What a bizarre conclusion