citation?
Sure, "a lot of people in the US" ... but "half" is pushing it, unless you've got sources.
I don't really understand what the 35%+ still sees in Trump. Massive fraud, abuse of power, covering up Epstein files, more war in the ME, the president is ranting at 3am on his social media. He's falling asleep in meetings and looking more frail all the time. And worst of all, he's still trying to undermine elections.
Guess I have to accept the fact that 1/3 of the American public wants an authoritarian figure to rule over us without any real checks or balances. They don't want anyone in Congress or the courts to oppose his excesses.
None of this is particularly different from what he said he'd do. This is a felon who tried to overthrow the 2020 election. But the US decided he was the person they wanted to preside of their country for 4 years.
And that 35% was about nearer 50% before their gas prices went up. Its nothing to do with Epstein, 3am rants, sleeping, shitting himself, pulling broadcast licenses, stealing billions from the tax payer and from pension funds, or about war, its solely because a few people are having to spend a little more to full up their monster trucks
If trump decided to give a $3 a gallon subsidy on gas prices his ratings would shoot back up.
As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people
Instead, we're ruled by these two dumb, evil political parties that radical centrists treat like elemental forces of nature. It's a play being put on for your benefit. Your vote changes nothing. The Heel W. Bush administration had presided over the most consciously evil things done in both foreign and domestic policy, with the full knowledge that it was illegal, and then Golden Boy Obama came and indemnified everyone. The person who illegally destroyed the CIA torture videotapes became the head of the CIA.
The country is a joke and quickly turning into a failed state, and upper middle-class people are being distracted by sock puppets because as the top 20%, they aren't suffering in the least.
edit: advocating for the prosecution of the last administration by the next is simply advocacy for dictatorship. There is no reason for anyone to leave the presidency if civic intellectual thought has degenerated so much that they think that this is a wise or democratic thing to do. If you vote in a criminal, there's no clawback after you get robbed. The reason this is a failed state is because we're exclusively putting criminals on the ballot, from President to dog catcher. Turns out that non-criminals can't raise millions of dollars to get a job.
And then Obama came in with promises and almost immediately brought everything back to default George Bush timelines. To those of you that don't live in SF, most SF progressives HATED Obama because all he did was legitimize Bush's policies instead of acting on his promises of "Hope" and "Change". Anyone remember how he talked about abortion rights, and then immediately after his presidency said that it wasn't a priority for him? If abortion rights were passed as a federal law, we wouldn't be where we are today post Dobbs.
OK but who was signing in place of the totally senile Biden? The autopen is a thing. That puppet wasn't functional anymore. Yet "he" was signing things.
Who's being held accountable for the deep state that was guiding Biden's hand?
Nobody. Just as this administration isn't holding anyone accountable for any of the misdeeds done under Biden, nothing is going to happen next.
That is by no means a given.
[^1]: Assuming there is one.
[^2]: That is, not petulantly prosecuting those deemed to have slighted you.
However, all of this is very far away from the legality of quantum computing
That's not exactly accurate and that nuanced difference may be the key to holding the executive branch accountable, now that we're in this disastrous state of the world.
What nuances are left then? What small amount of hope can be gleaned from the ruling?
Congress could also pass legislature or constitutional amendments to revert the effect of that tragic decision, though of course those also come with their own sets of challenges.
(IANALE btw)
It's amazing how much of America's political stability might rest not on the law, but rather on the self-restraint of each cohort's leadership.
Conjoin that with AI able to generate billions of videos, saying anything anyone wants, and you have a real issue. 99.99% of the population can't tell or even realises much of what they watch on youtube is AI, and... it will get less distinguishable, to the point that no one, at all, will be able to tell.
Not you, I, or anyone at all.
There are already endless AI personalities on youtube, each building followers. If I wanted to upset the apple cart, I'd spawn 1000 or more "people", each with a different appearance and manner of speaking. All would dance to my tune, and all would be the most honest, trustworthy source possible.
Until, of course, I wanted to upset the apple cart. Then I'd ensure that all these personalities, insisted that all the court decisions post-office, are lies, mistruths, and designed to punish and harm and "take out the right's power".
Imagine if you have someone you've watched for 2 years. On hundreds of points, they've been blisteringly honest, never lying, always truthful. Then?
On this one thing, they manipulate you.
Who do you trust? The most honest person you've ever seen, or the impartiality of the courts?
This is the sort of long game you can play with fake personalities. No disloyalty. No breaking ranks. No bad days, or mistakes.
I've fought for a free internet. I've fought for the right to anonymous posting. To be a voice, without an identity. But? That time is over, or we won't have a democracy. I've pivoted 180, I cannot see a democratic society with this level of manipulation continuing.
The con is claiming that this has anything to do with anonymity. There are 8 billion people. Someone with money can get a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand of them to lend their names to bots. The cost of a random human name is less than the cost of the years worth of tokens they'd be putting under it. Sacrificing anonymity over that is a fraud.
On top of that, we shouldn't pretend this is a new issue. In 1975 the local magnate owned the local newspaper and radio station and had relatively unbiased coverage of issues until it came to the ones that affect their own business dealings or the political ambitions of their associates.
And your disaster scenario doesn't even work when people are getting information from multiple sources. If the sources are >50% lies and exaggerations then you can spot check a small sample of the stories and notice that. (Sadly all too many current outlets fail this test.) But if, as you posit, they offered unbiased coverage almost all of the time then their coverage would be similar to every other source offering mostly unbiased coverage, until they try to mislead you, and then your "reliable sources" would be saying different things from one another because less than 100% of them are controlled by the one trying to manipulate you, which is a major red flag that somebody is lying to you.
The actual problem is that people don't bother to do the spot checks when the source is telling them the pretty lies they want to hear. Which is nothing new and has very little to do with AI.