So... what's the critique here exactly? "Oh hey everybody, Paul is out touch!" - Okay, now what? Rich people are rich, that's truism. Some comments made good counter arguments but this lazy polished ad-hominem attacks are more offensive than the piece itself.
In the modern world: any tech proposition that starts with protection of children as a goal can be dismissed out of hand, since it's emotional manipulation masquerading as tech policy. When I hear "protect kids", all I see is a sleazy politician bowing to their respective Security State apparatus.
My first reaction to the title was: "duh, selection/survivorship bias" but their counter is pretty solid:
> Firstly and perhaps most importantly, selection bias is possible because individuals who are at higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease may be less likely to enter or remain in memory intensive driving occupations such as taxi and ambulance driving. This could mean that the lower Alzheimer’s disease mortality observed in these occupations is not due to the protective effect of the job itself but rather because those prone to the disease may have self-selected out of such roles. However, Alzheimer’s disease symptoms typically develop after patients’ working years, with only 5-10% of cases occurring in people younger than 65 years (early onset).1114 While subtle symptoms could develop earlier, they would still most likely be after a person had worked long enough to deem the occupation to be a so-called usual occupation, suggesting against substantial attrition from navigational jobs due to development of Alzheimer’s disease. Moreover, even if lifelong taxi driving selects for individuals with strong spatial processing, our findings would still suggest an interesting link between spatial processing skills and risk of Alzheimer’s disease.
If you read the news with enough cynicism, you'll realize that rules like formality, password strength or cybersecurity hygiene are for the average Joes, not the morons/perverts who run the world.
The author should consider smelling his own perfume, given the state and design of the site where he delivers his musings and gives us the moral lecture on not making the lives of one's customers miserable (without a hint of irony).
So we now have just pure marketing slop on the HN front page? How is this interesting or "curious" again? The AI slop season is affecting HN in clever ways.
The tech is interesting and useful, no need for the scary moral framing.
The original application of the entire field of data science or ML is/was actually based on this paradigm of finding "unconscious preferences" (your words) and hidden patterns. How one chooses to deploy the tech should be judged on its own.
On the current trajectory of tool/data abuse where Palantir et al. are leading the way, this is very low on the sinister scale.
Yeah, maybe let's change the title to remove that 84% rate. It's meaningless because it's just 254 websites, given the scale of what Google Safe Browsing deals with.
How is this serious? This is a marketing slop. If the title isn't enough indicator, the ending should be:
> If you're interested in trying Muninn, it's available as a Chrome extension. We're in an early phase and would genuinely appreciate feedback from anyone willing to give it a shot. And if you run across phishing in the wild, consider submitting it to Yggdrasil so the data can help protect others.
> We owe a real debt to the soldiers who died for the world we live in.
Why? It's a job. Chosen voluntarily (usually), with known risks. Never mind the propaganda part that they are dying for a "world we live in". How a soldier dying for some war with dubious morality is owed any "debt" is beyond me.
I submit that we owe others who died doing some kind of public good much more debt than some dude who was duped into sacrificing his life to gun down others for some made-up reason. It's really hard to find any soldier who died for a good cause for most of the past century actually.
Setting aside the context of this quoted verse and how NSFW stuff is judged in religious texts, this doesn't address the more important point that OP raised: the visuals of this verse and more extreme ones can be easily found on Reddit and similar allowed apps. So OP's points stands.