ignirtoq

TL;DR: While governments are putting out assurances AI won't make the final decision to launch nuclear weapons, they are tight-lipped about whether they are putting AI in the information gathering and processing components that advise world leaders making the decision to launch nuclear weapons. In risk assessment, there's little difference between wrong AI making the launch decision and a human informed by wrong AI making the launch decision.

One catch is that they are only forced to release "unclassified" files. Guess who decides what files are classified?

And they're being redeployed to Charlotte, NC, and New Orleans, LA. They're continuing the tactic of blitzing whatever they want to do somewhere, and when the courts start to catch up, they pull out and start to do something else somewhere else. They can do whatever they want, legality be damned, if they accomplish their goals before the courts wake up. This is guerrilla warfare applied to the legal checks and balances between the branches of government.

If this Supreme Court were considering the issue for the very first time today, it would almost certainly hold that the Constitution does not protect same-sex marriage by a 6–3 vote. But now that Obergefell is entrenched as precedent, and widely supported by Americans, they’ve shown no appetite for spending down their political capital to issue an unpopular ruling that could only hurt the Republican Party.

This seems like a really naive thing to say about this court. They have shown no qualms about striking down much older cases with a stronger history of precedent than Obergefell on the most specious of reasoning. They struck down Chevron Deference last year, which was in place since 1984 and had come to form the backbone of judicial handling about highly technical aspects of government regulation of virtually every industry.

And they have no hesitation about making unpopular rulings. Several justices have a habit of lecturing the public in a way that's essentially talking down to the people they are supposed to serve and say they simply know what's better for the people than... the people. Their egos couldn't care less about their public image; Chief Justice John Roberts has spoken out multiple times that people need to basically shut up and respect the court's decisions no matter if they like them or not.

It's a higher level of infuriating that the court is so obviously corrupt, and then the most corrupt among them present themselves as fundamentally more deserving of respect and deference than the common rabble.

If the court rules against the president, it will nullify a major tool in Mr. Trump’s trade agenda. He has used the law under question, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose tariffs on an estimated 29 percent of all U.S. imports, the Times analysis found. So far this year, these emergency tariffs have hit more than $300 billion in imported goods.

Not that I expect it to happen, but if they rule against him, what happens to the money the government has collected from illegal tariffs so far? Do they just keep it? Do they have to go through the books and return it to the importers? The costs were often absorbed by vendors at the start, but there's no question a large fraction have already been passed on to consumers.

I didn't say benefits were not cut off. I'm challenging the assertion that the mere fact that the government is shutdown is the cause of funding being cut off, like the phrase I quoted implicitly assets. The shutdown alone is not the reason funds for SNAP were cut off, and my proof of my assertion is the fact that funding has never been cut off in previous shutdowns.

This means someone must have chosen to execute this shutdown differently on purpose. Republicans are in charge of all branches of government, so they are the most likely culprit.

federal food benefits were cut off due to the government shutdown.

No, they were not cut off due to the shutdown. Payments had not been stopped in any prior shutdown and didn't have to be stopped in this one. Trump and Republicans specifically chose for this to happen to put more pressure on Democrats. They don't care if Americans starve to death, while Democrats do. They are starving Americans because Democrats are trying to stop Americans from losing healthcare.

It's much worse than that. He's a proponent of the "prosperity gospel," which says God directly rewards a person's faithfulness and adherence to scripture with worldly success. So if you need help, that means you have not been a good enough Christian, so it would be against God's will for his church to help.

Meanwhile, revenue is up 38%. Over 10 million paying users. The shareholders are happy. The venture capitalists at General Atlantic and Drive Capital are thrilled.

The users? Deleting the app in protest.

How is revenue up if users are leaving en masse? I would understand if they said profits are up. Are they shoving more ads and raising prices faster than users are leaving? Because Netflix has shown that is unfortunately a viable strategy for a rather long time. Sure, it might eventually kill the product, but they'll get years out of it.

I was really hoping that the AI they would be talking about would be the specialized algorithms known to have real, beneficial effects, like the one that basically solved protein folding. But no, they are talking about LLMs making policy, which sounds genuinely horrifying at this stage.

"Just as Al Qaeda wages war on our homeland, these cartels are waging war on our border and our people."

What? When has Al Qaeda attacked the US homeland since 9/11?