> “These zero-day and exploit brokers tend to be unscrupulous," says Cole. “They sell to the highest bidder and they double dip. Many don’t have exclusivity arrangements. That’s very likely what happened here.”
I interpreted this a different way - that a shady supplier to the US Government double dipped to the other side.
> Maybe "Artisanal Coding" will be a thing in the future?
Steve Gibson was hand-coding assembly (often beautifully and making for very compact binaries) long after almost everyone else had switched to C language or higher in abstraction. This is the closest analogy I can think of it.
It had it's own cult following, but I wouldn't say it was a massive movement.
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.
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.)
> 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.
I interpreted this a different way - that a shady supplier to the US Government double dipped to the other side.
reply