This is an interesting idea:

The “at least one” in the prompt is deliberately aggressive, and seems likely to force hallucinations in case an article is definitely error-free. So, while the sample here (running the prompt only once against a small set of articles) would still be too small for it, it might be interesting to investigate using this prompt to produce a kind of article quality metric: If it repeatedly results only in invalid error findings (i.e. what a human reviewer  Disagrees with), that should indicate that the article is less likely to contain factual errors

I see you’ve also purchased a new scratching post

Is the project current? I see an archived repository.

I don’t mean to question the sincerity of your post when I ask this. Did you use a LLM, like chatgpt, to edit/phrase your question? This style of writing is also used by humans, so I absolutely could be wrong. I am just checking my AI detection calibration.

A standardized magnetic pogo pin connector

That’s something I hadn’t considered before. What a neat idea.

A lot overboard, really. There is a long way to go for truth and reconciliation.

As for data safety, its not looking too great: https://tuta.com/blog/canada-bill-c2-surveillance

I’m not sure it’s alarmist; I think this is all a breaking change is.

Anybody updating needs to know their existing config may not longer be supported. Even if the consequences are small, even if not every user will be affected, this update will break some previously acceptable configs. I think that warrants a heads up and a reminder to read the release notes.

I was bracing myself for some level of absurdity after this disclaimer.

Instead it seemed to be pretty reasonably complicated. They didn’t flash some custom firmware or even mess with the hardware at all.

Sure, it is complicated, but in terms of hacks it seems to be par for the course.

TIL I might be in a maze

2. I dont think theyre worried, they seem to value informed decisions
3. again, true, but a bit of foresight can save hassle