Heh, this is cute, but I suspect it's just SEO (Search Engine Optimization).
Now, there are lots of other ways to do SEO, but this approach involves making lots of sites on the Internet, trying to make them look like real/popular/official sites, and then have them all link to a site (or sites) ... that you are trying to get to rank higher in Google.
In this case, "The Prompting Company" is a little more overt (most of these SEO farms try to make their different sites look completely independent), but it seems follow the same basic pattern. With a tool like AHrefs (which is expensive so I don't have a subscription) I bet you could see their SEO, and what site they are really promoting, clearly.
This is such right-wing anti-college nonsense. The author clearly has a strong bias against higher education and scientific research, and it's painfully apparent from his argument.
To save you from reading this junk, his core argument is "some college class should never have had students write about a scientific study, because that study wasn't perfect." Meanwhile, anyone who knows anything about science knows there are almost NO PERFECT STUDIES.
A perfect, huge cohort, well-run study is very expensive. But we don't just say "well, giant studies are expensive, let's just give up on all non-giant studies": we do smaller ones (like the one he attacks, which focused on a single school). And we certainly don't say "well the study was small, we can't learn anything from it or talk about it"!
The author's fundamental "make perfect the enemy of the good" misunderstanding is huge! It reflects a complete misunderstanding of how science works ... and if you do have a proper understanding, the idiocy of this anti-higher education hit piece becomes obvious.
P.S. One other note: the class/study was in the news because a right-wing student wrote a crazy right-wing answer to the assignment, and (correctly) failed it. While the author denies it, it's clear the real impetus for this whole thing is to defend that student.
I read the article, and you have severely mischaracterized it, to the point of lying. The author is not complaining that the study was imperfect, but that the assignment given to the students involving that study did not teach them anything about its methodological weaknesses, nor did it require any kind of rigorous thinking at all.
Or anyone who even wants VC funding. 90+% of investors only want to invest in AI companies.
If you're not doing AI there's an incredibly limited pool of people who will give you $$$ ... and you're competing with EVERY OTHER NON-AI COMPANY for their attention.
The standard across almost all services is to retain easy-to-retain data when someone leaves. It's just good business: you WANT them to come back.
The only example I can think of are the TV services: Netflix will erase your watched show list if you unsubscribe. But they are very purposefully doing it out of spite: they want to push you towards not unsubscribing at all (so they penalize it even at the cost of discouraging you from coming back ... because they know "subscription hopping" is a thing, and expect you'll come back anyway).
It's 100% a dick move when the TV services do it, but at least it (kind of) makes business sense for them to do it. For Claude it's just alienating their customers needlessly.
This is both true and insightful, but the "its us capitalists vs. communists" framing obscures some very important details.
For one, "Communism" is presented as a single monolith, but it's not: it's socialism PLUS despotism. The despotism part is really important! China/Russia/etc. fail because they try and control things top-down, instead of letting the market decide.
However, you can have socialism without despotism! Tons of European countries are far more socialist, but no less democratic than America (many are more democratic).
So yes, America vs. Russia/China and Capitalist vs. Communist are relevant frames ... but don't let them obscure the fact that you can have a successful, democratic country .. without doing what America does (and giving all control to corporations).
They're not independent. They are the systematic consequences of a naive intelligentsia pressing their ideals that are not grounded in precedent. They are susceptible to manipulative despotic takeover. The pattern keeps repeating. Across geographies large and small.
Nope. Even though you must supply your address in the registration form, a WHOIS request for your locality domain will only show information about the registrar.
This is definitely not true for general .us domains.
I registered one a year or two ago. And assuming my normal default Whois privacy was being applied (I clicked through too fast. Wasn’t paying attention)
I noticed my mistake after the spam bots started hitting me up for their web design products.
That was clearly not true for domains directly under .us when I last read their rules, roughly a year ago.
I suppose it might be true for .city.state.us subdomains, but those fail my first criterion (they're not short), and are themselves a privacy hazard since they substantially narrow the search space for personal info about the domain owner. So it doesn't refute my criticism.
I was so excited when I started the article: this person has thought hard about what makes a good error message and a bad error message. I was so excited to learn!
But it turns out they were completely full of it, and have absolutely no idea what separates a good/bad message. Quite disappointing.
reply