Sure, the internet is more practical, and the odds of being caught in the time required to execute a decent strike plan, even one as vague as: "we're going to Amerika and we're going to hit 50 high profile targets on July 4th, one in every state" (Dear NSA analyst, this is entirely hypothetical) so your agents spread to the field and start assessing from the ground the highest impact targets attainable with their resources, extensive back and forth from the field to central command daily for 90 days of prep, but it's being carried out on 270 different active social media channels as innocuous looking photo exchanges with 540 pre-arranged algorithms hiding the messages in the noise of the image bits. Chances of security agencies picking this up from the communication itself? About 100x less than them noticing 50 teams of activists deployed to 50 states at roughly the same time, even if they never communicate anything. HF (more often called shortwave) is well suited for the numbers game. A deep cover agent lying in wait, potentially for years. Only "tell" is their odd habit of listening to the radio most nights. All they're waiting for is a binary message: if you hear the sequence 3 17 22 you are to make contact for further instructions. That message may come at any time, or may not come for a decade. These days, you would make your contact for further instructions via internet, and sure, it would be more practical to hide the "make contact" signal in the internet too, but shortwave is a longstanding tech with known operating parameters.

You said it yourself: extra places that need human attention ... those need ... humans, right? It's easy to say "let AI find the mistakes". But that tells us nothing at all. There's no substance. It's just a sales pitch for snake oil. In reality, there are various ways one can leverage technology to identify various errors, but that only happens through the focused actions of people who actually understand the details of what's happening. And think about it here. We already have computer systems that monitor patients' real-time data when they're hospitalized. We already have systems that check for allergies in prescribed medication. We already have systems for all kinds of safety mechanisms. We're already using safety tech in hospitals, so what can be inferred from a vague headline about AI doing something that's ... checks notes ... already being done? ... Yeah, the safe money is that it's just a scam.

While this news is both expected and unsettling, I'm pretty keen on how our gov has this info available to the public. And the site itself - such a vast resource for security info, tools, etc. Not all of our gov nor all departments are something to behold, but our cyber teams are top notch. And holy shit: https://github.com/CybercentreCanada

From what I know, those agents can be absolutely fantastic as long as they run under strict guidance of a senior developer who really knows how to use them. Fully autonomous agents sound like a terrible idea.

Okay, I'd be interested to hear what you think is wrong with this, because I'm pretty sure it's more or less correct. Some sources for you to help you understand these concepts a bit better: What DLSS is and how it works as a starter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Learning_Super_Sampling Issues with modern "optimization", including DLSS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJu_DgCHfx4 TAA comparisons (yes, biased, but accurate): https://old.reddit.com/r/FuckTAA/comments/1e7ozv0/rfucktaa_resource/

I watched a bit of Michael Alm's video on this, but noped out when I saw all of the little boxes of consumables appearing. If regular printer ink is already exorbitant, I can only imagine what these proprietary cartridges will cost.

Nobody ever wants to talk about white collar on white collar crime.

Or just use Linkwarden or Karakeep (previously Hoarder)