I read that but it also seems to indicate that she’s a third generation monarch in her family. Maybe it’s not officially hereditary but it’s a bit sus. Not to mention that monarchies are bad for reasons beyond their (typically) hereditary nature.

I also think the presidency is a harmful institution but I know most people aren’t there yet.

On the one hand, awesome to see young women having a role in leadership. On the other hand, monarchy is pretty much the worst form of government.

So the simulation has predicted an event in line with something in that past and that caused you to stop reading? I’m not following your reasoning.

I’m not sure I buy this argument but I will admit that I’m not extremely familiar with the hoarding or sharing of trade secrets prior to patents. Any recommended reading on this topic? If your logic is correct, patents should be as short as practically possible to encourage information sharing.

I don’t see how this applies to copyright though. Are you concerned people will create works and then bury them? I don’t see the risk here.

Oh so they’re actually created the same way as a zip file? That makes sense I guess. Thanks.

To be honest I’m not that excited about Harris as a president but I am excited about maybe finally getting our first female president. We’re way overdue for that at this point.

How do these contain random files like this? Isn’t it just a file that applies some kind of visual effect to the media player?

I’m saying we’ve already allowed corporate exploitation of human culture for centuries. But yes, by all means, if AI is the last straw then I’m with you. But I want people to see the broader picture and not hyperfocus only on AI.

I’m not saying the process is exactly the same but conceptually it’s quite similar. Humans don’t create original ideas. They build on what came before. Maybe a truly brilliant artist or inventor adds 1% new ideas. That’s not enough to justify the extremely broad ownership of ideas that exists in our society. These laws implicitly assume that ideas were created from nothing through the sheer brilliance of the creator. Pure nonsense.

Humans have been freely copying each other for millions of years. It’s how we built everything we have. Ideas and art were not meant to be owned. The very concept of owning something non-physical is violent and authoritarian in nature. Without physical possession, the only way IP laws can be enforced is a global police empire, which the US has successfully created for its own enrichment at the expense of the global poor.

So in that context, the fact that AI is borrowing human ideas and then profiting from it doesn’t bother me any more than that humans do the same thing.

The “issue” is that this logic applies to all human creations as well.

Exactly, that’s the problem. Hence my criticism!

Nationalism is a poison in the public consciousness everywhere it takes root.

Insider from OpenAI PR department speaks out!

Ok, this doesn’t seem to be the overall picture in the economic literature but thanks for sharing your experience. Given that, I can see why you hold those views.

So anecdotal? Have you worked in a worker’s coop? It’s hard to see how some workers taking advantage of others would be worse than the owner taking advantage of them but if you have seen it maybe you can explain how.

Love me some Anark—I did watch this but I don’t remember seeing much detail on how community governance works. Is it in there and I missed it?

So you don’t have one then? I’ve seen plenty of research on worker coops, and I’ve never seen any that supports this idea. Without any evidence I’m left to conclude that this is just capitalist apologia.

Source?

I think workers coops are definitely better than private ownership but it seems like there should also be some involvement of the broader community being served (or negatively impacted in some cases) in the case of non-profits.

I would like to do more research on alternative non-profit governance structures. In my experience, non-profit boards seem to be just another mechanism by which the wealthy control decision-making in society. However, I don’t know what kind of structure would be better.

Doubtful. The same speculation occurred during the last speaker crisis. In general you would need a coalition of democrats and republicans willing to vote together to preserve his speakership. Voting with a large bloc of democrats would be politically dangerous for most R’s, and I’m not sure D’s are going to perceive much benefit in supporting McCarthy anyway. It’s not like he’s particularly moderate or left-leaning. And dysfunction in the Republican caucus is probably a political win for them, so they’d have to perceive a benefit bigger than that one as well.

If he was willing to offer some significant concessions then maybe but I don’t see that happening either.

That’s a hypothesis certainly… I’m pretty skeptical and they don’t provide any evidence whatsoever.

My take is that this dissatisfaction is driven by cripplingly high housing costs among low income people. Of course, people need to realize that it’s going to take far more than abstaining from supporting Joe Biden to solve their problems. But we’ve been trained for our whole lives to think that voting is the only way we can influence decision making in society.

Considering that Mexico is denying they will cooperate with this law it seems a stretch to call it a treaty. And even if you do accept this logic, it is hardly explicit.

Is it though? What part of the constitution are you referring to?

Yeah I mean Bibi has been known to be a fascist for a long time.

Only two states where she won over 40% so far, Vermont and Utah. Those two are definitely not representative of the Republican electorate as a whole. In national poll averages she has never broken 20%. That is a significant faction but her defeat was never in doubt to careful observers.

How it will affect the general election is a more interesting question.

That’s not in line with the polling I’ve seen. Where did you get that number?

Being the oldest president in history is by definition not routine. I know people like to point out that Trump is almost as old, but 4 years is significant at these ages.

I think there has been coverage of Trump’s autocratic tendencies so I’m not sure what you mean by that part.

A lot of media coverage, especially in elections has to do with expectations. Biden is an incumbent facing no real opposition in the primary. Trump had real opposition, and there was a chance he would lose. You could argue he’s a semi-incumbent but I don’t think the media views him that way. Reporting on his overcoming this obstacle is naturally going to look a little more positive. In contrast, Biden has little to no chance of losing but has somehow managed to create major opposition to his candidacy anyway. This is noteworthy.

The non-committed vote is an unusual event and it ties into an important issue: the US government’s ongoing material support for ethnic cleansing in Gaza. I think it would be quite bizarre if this did not get coverage.

I am not saying that arguments of bias are automatically wrong, but as you say they have been (falsely, I think) repeated by every president. It’s going to take some compelling evidence and argumentation to overcome my natural skepticism of this idea. So far, I haven’t seen any real case be made. Not to mention that I think there is generally a greater danger in coverage of the powerful that is too positive as compared to too negative. See right-wing media’s fawning Trump coverage for an example.

I think you’re misunderstanding his point. Biden is facing the difficult task of governing a divided country. Trump is looking to consolidate power within his own party. One of these tasks is a historic, perhaps insurmountable challenge, and the other is routine. Even from a completely neutral perspective, this means you will report on more failures by Biden and more successes for Trump.

I personally don’t find this “the media is so mean to Biden!” narrative any more compelling than when Trump was claiming the same thing as president. The media has always been critical of those in power and this is a healthy part of our democratic system.

I disagree. The non-committed vote had an impact, protests are having an impact, and there are many other non-electoral actions that can have an impact as well.

Voting for down-ballot candidates that will resist violence can also have an impact but voting only happens every so often, so in the meantime we should be finding other organized activities that are effective.

The issue is that government is a lot more complicated and contentious than milking a cow. It fundamentally can’t work if people don’t educate themselves, get involved, and work at it.

Not everyone will find the time or energy to do this, but it is much more important and productive than wasting time arguing about whether we should or shouldn’t vote for Biden. If you don’t have the time yourself, perhaps you can find the time to support or encourage other like-minded people to do so.

The stuff he’s doing is in response to pressure voters like you have applied. Now that the primary is over we need to think of new ways to keep the pressure on. Protests will have a place, but I wonder what else can be done.

The issue is not that it doesn’t know everything, it’s that it doesn’t know anything. It’s not capable of knowledge in the sense that humans are. All it does is probabilistically predict which sequence of words might best respond to a prompt, based on huge amounts of human text that it was trained on.

Part of the issue is how will you train the model to know which things in its training data are factual and which are not? An incredible amount of human curation already goes into just avoiding the model from repeating offensive things, but the realm of facts is so so much broader than that. I don’t see any way it could be done.

But on the other hand I am only a casual observer of this technology and perhaps the experts will come up with a creative solution we can’t yet imagine.

Is it because they’re shitty overpriced pieces of junk hawked by a known con artist? Or some other reason?

Primaries are only to decide which candidate will be nominated by which party. Typically there is no real contest for a sitting president to be renominated, so not voting for Biden in the primary will not affect anything.

Basically Trump and Biden are not competing in the primary because they are competing for different things—the nominations of their respective parties.

Once the general election rolls around you can make the argument that failing to vote for the best candidate to beat Trump would be helping him indirectly. But in the primary you could actually make the argument that voting for Nikki Haley would be more effective in stopping Trump than voting for Biden, since she is completing directly for the Republican nomination. However her candidacy is all but dead at this point.

I imagine so though it’s actually improved notably in recent years.

The fact that people don’t understand the differences in style and purpose between fact-based reporting and opinion pieces is a travesty. There is no way this can be anything other than an opinion piece because of its topic and tone. Whether you agree or disagree or find its position to be self-evident is irrelevant. It simply does not meet the standards of traditional fact-based reporting. Which people today don’t seem to understand the value of.

Thanks. With that in mind, while this seems like a great program, I can understand the governor’s perspective. For better or worse CA is required to maintain a balanced budget so these expenses must be considered.

I have concerns about what this would mean for non-drivers. Sometimes you don’t want lights to align for maximum throughput. There are other factors at play here.