I’m also unclear on what’s better than perplexity if you want accurate information (and not just to write Harry Potter fan fiction or whatever)

I finally switched off ChatGPT premium when I asked a simple question (“which terminal is this airline”) and it was so confidently wrong. Perplexity referencing sources and trying to double check accuracy is great IMO.

Weird. I have used Perplexity various times over the years and every single time it was confidently wrong about a good 50% of what it was saying. In particular, it would cite references that said the exact opposite of what it claimed they said, or references that had nothing to do with the topic at hand and were only tangentially related, etc. My coworkers have reported the same, so it's definitely not just me.

In short, I really don't know where Perplexity's reputation of "being accurate" comes from. It's anything but.

For all of the talk of the downfall of Americans software here on HN and how all the Europeans are moving away, this happened today as well...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47169815 (iPhone and iPad approved to handle classified NATO information)

There’s also all sorts of audit logs and legal compliance and iso/nist/etc certifications required when setting that up for use in a large company.

Not sure about a startup, though, maybe they’d roll the dice.

What I don’t understand is why Biden didn’t release this then.

The donor class of both entrenched parties is extremely compromised by the files. It has been and continues to be mutually assured destruction.

That would suggest new parties coming to the fore, which has happened in European countries.

The good faith explanation is that one party ran on an independent DoJ and one did not. In which case it's a false equivalency if one party legitimately was letting the FBI cook.

The cynical explanation is that the people most implicated in the files are Democratic elites - that just so happens to include Donald Trump back when he was a Democratic elite.

It's usually available through various indirect means. For example, the person who applies to trademark their stage name [0]. (People in the comments are comparing this to revenge porn, but legally it's completely different.)

[0] https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn88576104&docI...

No one thinks the FBI is competent enough for it to be them.

> I wonder if any incomplete redactions are/were purposeful to leak

Yeah I’ve wondered this too. As dumb as some of the people doing redactions might be, I still think they would’ve learned from previous botched redactions that you can’t leave the real text underneath the black box. Unless they weren’t trying to.

It’s been reported they had to bring in many unqualified and untrained people because of the urgency and scope of the work.

There’s a recent podcast, I think it’s called “Explosive Lies”, covering this

>everyone knows that triangulation based on cell towers

*trilateration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateration

Lol reminds me of that partially redacted document about the Titan submarine that imploded.

There was like "submarine expert number 2, name redacted" and in expert 2's testimony he said something like "you may recall from my film, Titanic, that..." and I mean it could be anyone or maybe is definitely James Cameron

Lots of people worked on that film, and no doubt Cameron likes to hire fellow deep sea enthusiasts. It could be anybody! /s