The problem in there is corporations. AI is just the means of the dickery, not the cause.

I would also go further and say the root cause is capitalism, and that someone being able to eat or be housed should not be based on whether or not their art has met the criteria for corporate purchase. But I digress.

Expanded rest API, an MCP, and the webhook options and integrations are significantly expanded.

Actually given that, if you have a weekly with AI as part of it, tagging [AIT] will allow people to filter it out.

Its pretty ancillary to the newsletter itself so its not really required, but just to mention… if it were tagged, any low effort comments like “slop” or similar would then be removed. I don’t really see that on your posts in general though, so more a thought for later should it become a problem.

Its not really accurate.

There are 3 sites, the primary r&d all happens in Cupertino, but the second largest r&d is out of Herzliya, Israel, and the third largest is back in California at San Diego.

The architecture is licensed from ARM, so UK there, and production is by TSMC, mostly Taiwain and expanding into Arizona.

As I understand it, the facility in Israel is responsible for architecture design related to components like camera sensor architecture, WiFi, etc. Apple bought Israeli companies to do this.

there’s no way to demonstrate awareness without some really comprehensive periodic survey results (that don’t exist)

Exactly. Thats all I’m saying. Epstein (and especially the Lolita Express) were not unknowns until after Epstein died. Did he become a more common discussion after? Absolutely, but it isn’t as though people in general were unaware of his existence.

Thats all I’m saying.

Trends is just search history over time. It is entirely impacted by major events, and in no way demonstrates common awareness. Massive peaks - such as those resulting from ongoing events like a vote to make the release of Epstein files as law, and the ongoing nonsense and slow fed drip of heavily redacted files - skew the charts substantially.

Give me a moment to grab my laptop, and I’ll edit in to demonstrate.

This is 2010 to 2016. The peak is shown in 2016, and another big jump in interest in 2015. Lets compare that same bit out to 2018.

Still has big peaks, specifically in 2015 and 2016.

Now lets go past the day he died - August 10th, 2019.

What happened to those peaks? Well, he died in custody, under very strange circumstances. Interest was higher, but there was awareness much earlier. What happened was a rapid spike in searches because of what happened, not because he was unknown.

Point being, Google Trends shows search activity, not commonality in awareness. Major events skew the chart. It does not, in any way, demonstrate the commonality of awareness of the existence of a person.

Lolita express was Epstein’s private plane.

There is no “switcharoo”, trends does not show what you think it does, and does not work how you seem to think it works.

I’m not trying to “win” anything, I think that may be the root of the issue here.

I also think you grossly misunderstand what google trends shows, which I tried to explain, but you seemed to think meant I was trying to “win” something.

I’ll be done with you here. I would recommend you learn how google trends works though, because it doesn’t mean what you think it does.

You provided an opinion, I provided mine.

There is nothing we can point to as evidence. I have pointed out why that chart isn’t evidence, its simply searches, and greatly impacted by active and ongoing events. Change it to the past 12 months, the peak in February is massive, and there was no apparent interest in August of 2025.

Except there was - its just relative. February is when files began being released.

Google trends is not evidence or proof of anything in the slightest.

I’m sorry this bothers you so much to have someone disagree, but I do, and there isnt much more to say about it.

Enjoy your day/evening.

Edit: Just as an example for you - Lolita express.

Was “Lolita express” referenced in any context other than Epstein in common usage?

No.

But according to this (non-evidence), it was of massive interest in 2016. Why would that be?

Google trends <> evidence.

Even his arrest was global news, random google chart aside.

Reps were calling for Acosta to testify about the plea deal before his arrest, following the herald’s exposé.

Before that it was brought up for ties to Clinton, quite regularly, especially during the campaigning up to the 2016 election…

Skyrocketing interest following his death (more to find out about his death than anything else) or following a very public and continual series of comments about the Epstein files doesn’t really indicate anything other than google searches following significant events, not whether people were aware of him. That is really all that “interest over time” chart says, IMO - more people were searching for additional news, nothing more, on very recent, very public, very notable news.

I’ll have to go with “confirmed to have a severe misunderstanding” then.

I think you have a severe misunderstanding of what was said.

You said he wasn’t a household name until he died.

I would not agree with that, it was definitely earlier enough to cause issues, including reopening investigations, long before he died.

Thats all.

Epstein wasn’t a household name until his death

I would say his name became pretty well known before his death. I’d say more like 2018 with the Miami Herald exposé.

Less known but still pretty public was Giuffre in 2011 with the allegations against the Andrew formerly known as a prince. It was a pretty big story for the UK royal family. Maybe not “household” level though.

Epstein’s arrest was also pretty big news, though yes it was only a month or so before his death, but I would have to say he was known by a pretty significant number of people by this point, definitely household name by the time of arrest.

After his death is when the conspiracy theories went all over the place, but I wouldn’t equate that to his being a household name.

Please tag your post ( [CBH] or [AIP] ) and if AI was used, add the disclosure

See rules 7&8 and message with any questions

Thanks!

I think you’re confused about the AI involvement here.

AI was used to check for cheating in a remote exam. The percentages that passed were several times more than in previous years, while 2% got tossed for “unspecified conduct issues”.

Assuming those 2% were actually cheating and not the AI making a mistake is the issue.

These were multiple choice exams. There was no ability to copy/paste from an LLM. Could they have used another computer/monitor to look things up? Absolutely, but hardly relevant to the issue.

Telemetry is one reason.

Not having to worry about the service shutting down (Google Reader) is another.

Synced read status is a common one as well.

You may also use it in combination with another service to create RSS feeds for sites that dont have one.

Honestly having it not just get killed like Google Reader is a big chunk of the userbase.

Edit: Completely misread things, I thought you had 192.168.10.0 and 192.168.20.0. Yes it would be the whole subnet for a /24, if you wanted less you’d go higher as mentioned.

192.168.0.0/29 would include 192.168.0.1-192.168.0.7.

/28 would get you up to 192.168.0.15.

No, /24 is just 256 IPs.

192.168.0.0/24 = 192.168.0.0 mask 255.255.255.0, or 192.168.0.1-192.168.0.254.

If you want 192.168.0.0 through, say, 192.168.7.254, you need to cover 2k ip’s, which is a /21. The mask would be 255.255.248.0.

A /24 would only be the last octet.

Then you are missing the [CBH] tag.