ClarityJones

The opinion is not nearly as broad as certain sources say it is. What it actually says is that immunity as to "core" powers is absolute, but it doesn't define the scope of those powers. It says other official powers have some immunity, but are not immune basically if allowing the prosecution wouldn't impair future presidents. Those are both exceptions that are larger than the rule.

Some are saying it is broader than it is because they want charges to be dismissed. Others are saying it's broader because they want a more powerful executive. Others are saying it try to make the court look bad, or to get votes. Some are saying it because they're mistaken / confused. On 4 out of 5 counts, the court remanded for further proceedings without deciding whether Trump has immunity. All of these voices could have easily come out with a different take, claiming victory and saying he will likely be convicted on most counts.

It's not about what the president deserves, but what the people deserve. The founders (after overthrowing one government, forming another, deciding it failed) were tasked with forming a government that can "long endure"... with structuring an office that can both facilitate liberty, but also contend with major enemies foreign (and domestic). The scale of the question is beyond one life or death, but operates on centuries-long timelines. It deals with the equities that face millions of people, not merely the single person holding office.

What is the scope of these "core" powers? During times of war, the Commander in Chief directs military maneuvers etc. in active theatres of combat. At all times he directs readiness and training.

I wouldn't say that the history and tradition of the office is to have Delta Force manufacture artistic pottery cups for children to drink milk from while at school. That action in that time and place would not seem to fall within the role of Commander in Chief (regardless of his intent / subjective belief that the use of fine porcelain may provide some tactical advantage).

Two reasons. First, it's the office that's immune, not the person. If you prosecute a person for something they did "as president" then you're prosecuting the office. Second, it's not to be fair to the person. It's to protect the government from collapsing. People forget that happens all the time, often due to ineffective executive leadership. Look at Haiti, etc. So, I think it's true that Presidents will get away with a few things here and there that they shouldn't, Congress can still impeach and remove them. If Congress is on-board with what the President is doing, then that's a decent safeguard that "at least whatever the President is doing isn't going to destroy the country."

> Under a plain reading, a President is more than welcome to instruct the Justice department to investigate or charge anyone, or to not investigate certain crimes, and that is completely permissible.

I think we have fundamentally different views of the Executive's role. We have 3 branches of government, and the President is the guy who enforces the law. The Justice department is not a 4th branch of government.

It's not the man who's immune, but the office that he holds... if you intend the office to survive.

I think the courts are much better suited to resolving this kind of issue, because it's very product and advertising specific. Courts could easily rule that e.g. Spotify breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, or possibly civil fraud, or something else, by failing to prominently disclose the minimum number of years / bricking the devices too soon.

A judicial solution would be much more measured and flexible.

Unfortunately, lawyers and courts have a undeservedly bad reputation which is often created by poor legislation which is beset by political motives and disadvantaged by having to draft prospective rules that can apply to a broad set of differing circumstances.

Edit: Why don't court do this more? Often because of terrible, over-reaching legislation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act

It's one thing to discontinue selling the product.

It's another to discontinue service (i.e. Music) to the product.

Did the hardware generate a lot of support requests?

Does it require too much engineering to keep secure with updates, etc.?

I'm seeing about 19% on Medicaid and about 12.5% are on Food Stamps. In theory that could be up to 1/3, but there's presumably a lot of overlap... so maybe 25% give or take?

I think this makes sense to the extent that an understanding of the differences between language helps separate out language from the underlying meaning. However... the models that are used receive input (i.e. translate from language), and to learn / understand, and to output information (i.e. re-encode into language), do not all have to be the same.

Fair, but there may be overhead that doesn't need to exist. Certainly - for the limited compute my brain can accomplish - I could gain a deeper understanding of physics, if I focused on learning physics and didn't also have to simultaneously learn French.

You can have contracts within a company.

I surprised Apple approved the add, because it depicts the brand as a soul-crushing industrial force. The machine is a beast of steel and hydraulic pressure, which constantly bears down against a variety of fun and inspiring things. I don't really care about the particular items that were destroyed, but the theme is clearly one of destruction. We don't see the iPad being made. We see what is literally depicted as a remanent. That's not how Apple should want their brand or their products viewed.

Edit: What's concerning is that Apple is smart. People watched this ad and I have to assume they thought what I thought. So... what's the psychology of deciding to convey this message? Is it a threat? Is it narrative-forming? Is it subversive admission (canary) from within the company? I mean... it's very reminiscent of the 1984 ad, except with Apple being the machine. Of course, it's also possible that they just made a mistake of judgment and missed the mark, as they say. IDK

Yep. It's not particularly hard to determine which people will sell others out for a good paycheck.

True, but there's a major difference between who leaves. A well-implemented RIF would eliminate many of those who prefer a Return to Office. So - for them - this is a better alternative.

Big-government is also an aspect. Both the federal and state governments in the US have a tendency to form wholly-owned subsidiaries to conduct businesses that could otherwise be run by co-ops.

It wasn't exactly random. The topic of the article is that light is eternal, and the commenter shared a quote from over a thousand years ago stating the same thing. So, the idea of light having an infinite lifetime is apparently not new... even if the mechanics of light are better understood these days.

I care because I want to develop my own land.

> The solution is terrifyingly simple: don't allow existing residents to block new housing developments. If they don't like it, they can move.

The problem with new housing development is that only large corporate investors are allowed to develop. I am very NIMBY as it relates to building apartments next-door, because I am prohibited from building apartments on my lot.

I'm all for reducing land use restrictions, but it should be done in a neutral fashion that doesn't advantage those with the capital to hire real-estate lawyers.

Prescriptions should not be required.

> I’m not really clear what your concrete proposal is for raising $10b as a non-profit, perhaps you could flesh that out?

OpenAI, Inc. (the nonprofit) could have partnered with Microsoft directly.

To be fair, maybe Microsoft may have required that certain code be kept secret in a way that OpenAI's charitable purpose would not have allowed. However, that would just suggest that the deal was not open and not in the best interests of the charity.

Moreover, I'm skeptical that OpenAI Global LLC paid fair market value to OpenAI, Inc. for the assets it received. Sure, the GPT-2 itself was open sourced, but a lot of the value of the business lied in other things: all of the datasets that were used, the history of training, what worked and what didn't work, the accessory utilities, emails, documents / memos, the brand, etc. The staff is a little tricky, because - sure - they are ostensibly free to leave, but there's no doubt there's a ton of value in the staff.

If OpenAI, Inc. (non-profit) put itself on the open market with the proceeds to go to another charity, what do you think Microsoft would have paid to buy the business? I bet it would have been a lot more than OpenAI Global LLC paid to OpenAI, Inc for the same assets...

> more than any charity has ever raised

The Novo Nordisk foundation has a $120 Billion endowment, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has $50 Billion, the Welcome Trust has $42 Billion, ... There are about 19 charities that still have more than $10 Billion, let alone those who have raised (and spent) that during their existence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_charitable_...

> an uncommonly huge raise even among _for-profit_ companies where investors expect returns.

So, offer a return on investment. Charities that take loans pay interest. Charities that hire staff pay salaries. What's with this idea that charities cannot pay a reasonable market rate for services (e.g. short-term funding)?

Would you please try to explain why?

> They're probably right that without making a profit, it's impossible to afford...

This doesn't begin to make sense to me. Nothing about being a non-profit prevents OpenAI from raising money, including by selling goods and services at a markup. Some sell girl-scout cookies, some hold events, etc.

So, you can't issue equity in the company... offer royalties. Write up a compensation contract with whatever formula the potential employee is happy with.

Contract law is specifically designed to allow parties to accomplish whatever they want. This is an excuse.

> A debtor's promise of future payments is worth less than an immediate payment of the same total amount because the creditor cannot use the money right away, inflation may cause the value of the dollar to decline before the debtor pays, and there is always some risk of nonpayment. The challenge for bankruptcy courts reviewing such repayment schemes, therefore, is to choose an interest rate sufficient to compensate the creditor for these concerns.

Till v. SCS Credit Corp, 541 US 465, 474 (2004).

> nobody gets anything.

The argument is that equity should get nothing, and the crypto-holder's assets should be adjusted for current value... just like how cash-holder's recovery would be adjusted for inflation.

The precise sequence of events (and cause) doesn't affect the numbers.

The initial up-market EV strategy saw many manufacturers vying for a small market. There are only so many people who are willing / able to spending upwards of $100k on a vehicle... especially one with compromised utility.

The cheap-EV strategy makes infinitely more sense for most American families, for whom having 1 hybrid / gas car and 1 EV allows them to cover all bases.

I don't think they were talking about the people, but the geography. The Taiwan and Japan are both physically close to China. Taiwan is 125 miles away. Japan is 500+ miles away. Germany is 5,500 miles away.

Corporations are also groups of people. There are owners, managers, employees, and contractors. We can take "corporations aren't people" too far, and forget that the individuals are all still humans, with feelings, motivations, and rights.

Americans have the freedom of speech, and they don't lose that every time they join up with a few mates and e.g. walk down the street (and perhaps protest together), or run a business (and perhaps donate money to political candidates together).

The people who own Apple, who work at Apple, etc. They do have feelings and desires, etc. The thing is, we're talking about a huge number of people. Very few - if any - actually know you personally. Some are nice people. Some are not.