friend_and_foe

3. 3 american citizens. He ordered operations that killed both that guys kids also, the latter of which was carried out in the first month of Trump's presidency. They were 12 and 8. Both were supposedly accidents.

"Withhold funding from the military" it's actually better (or worse) than that. The US doesn't have a standing army technically speaking, it cannot constitutionally. The post war military has been continuously reauthorized twice yearly since the end of world war 2. Congress can refuse to reauthorize continuation of it and the treasury can't do anything about it.

The constitution clearly says that a declaration of war is needed, and only short periods of action that are necessary in the interim can be taken by the president absent that. Congress does not have the authority to simply pass a law invalidating that. They did it, but it is most certainly not constitutional.

Congress, via impeachment.

Look, the president can't do something like start a war without permission from congress. Congress basically delegated that authority to the president. If the president then uses it irresponsibly (as has happened numerous times since congress made this decision) then that's the fault of congress. They can very easily pass legislation requiring a declaration of war and take that power back if they want to.

This is factually incorrect, the president can be prosecuted for anything, he doesn't even have to commit a crime, but there's a special process for that called impeachment. This isn't new stuff and it has been understood to work this way for a couple hundred or so years, until very recently.

I'm the opposite. And I live in an opposite world.

Cash is the only way I pay in person. I have a prepaid card and amazon gift cards for online purchases. If I'm in a store, I have cash. If you don't take cash you don't get my business. I live in an area where many of not most businesses have a cash discount or outright don't take cards. I closed my bank account a while back.

To me, it's embarrassing that there are places that call themselves businesses that don't take money.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal system.

Law as it applies to the conduct of people and organizations works this way in the Anglo common law world, yes. The constitution specifically and clearly states that the federal government is constrained in it's power to only those powers expressly outlined in it, and which branches have what powers.

Shame? Shame? People genuinely disagree with living under an administrative state comprised of unelected career bureaucrats coming and going through a revolving door to the corporations they regulate as they please. Isn't a complete remaking of the administrative state a progressive cause? I thought the goal of democracy was living in a system administered by those we elect?

This isn't the end of regulation, this is just the end of unelected agencies making up rules as they please. All this changes is that congress has to do their job.

If there are people there there will be a market there. I do expect that there will be people there within 100 years, probably sooner, if not for any reason, because a really rich guy that runs the most capable space launch company wants to make it happen.

i keep a list of installed packages and the package manager I used to install them. I don't track dependencies that I didn't manually install. This is manual, every time I type "pacman" or "yay" or even "pip" I write it down in a text file.

Other than that pacman -Syu every couple of weeks.

I'm probably going to start using paccache.

I've never had an arch system explode on me. I've had Debian systems do that. Using arch has been smooth sailing for me for the most part.

I think Hanlons Razor applies here. Terry Davis said it perfectly.

Seriously. This is just scaremongering. Could it happen? Anything can happen. Will it happen? I dunno, but acting like it is a foregone conclusion as justification for escalation is nothing more than pro war propaganda.

There was no market for a second global internet either, it already existed. If you build it they will come.

I think we see it time and time again, the steam engine, the internet, when you create something that enables radically new possibilities, people find ways to put them to profitable uses. The people inventing them have vision, they have ideas about what they could be used for, but ultimately nobody can predict how things will be used. We will probably be pleasantly surprised by the ways people are going to use mass scale space travel.

How so?

I remember seeing a 4chan screenshot right before the 2020 election, I'd guess about 2 weeks before election night, the person was claiming to be an "insider" whatever that means, and they were claiming that on election night, all the news anchors were going to keep repeating the phrase "red mirage", and that they'd keep counting votes until Trump lost, however long that takes. I was not convinced for a ton of reasons, after all this is 4chan, the site full of Q conspiracies and racists and LARPs and other assorted bullshit. At the very least, if the person were telling the truth, then the cat is out of the bag and they can't go through with it.

I remember watching that anchor who's dad was a famous anchor, I forget his name, on Fox news that night say the phrase "red mirage". They counted votes for 3 days after that.

> If the rumor was found to be false — and it usually was — corrections were rarely made and even then, little noticed.

This is rich coming from an MSM rag, doubly so for NYT.

I for one am old enough to remember when this was widely accepted. It seems it's out of fashion now, but I remember progressive people talking about male and female brains and how transgender people are born with the opposite brain, and it's proven, and if you don't believe it youre a science denier. I find it just a little suspicious that nobody is willing to admit that they said this out loud, almost as if it was not about science at all.

This just in: new research finds differences between male and female anatomy.

I don't understand the surprise.

Corporations are heartless machines. Archival, history, culture, these things are not their priorities. These things are our priorities. If someone else owns your creativity, accept from day 1 that you have no say in what happens to it. Believing otherwise is delusion.

I think, and this seems obvious to me hut apparently it's not, that what the author is trying to say is that 5G is useless unless it provides a benefit in peoples lives, and so measuring base stations doesn't actually tell you anything, if it's not useful to people no number of base stations matters.

The problem though is that those marketing this stuff want it to be taken seriously. They have to sell the "I" in AI. They can't tell you "this is a toy and is not intended for real world use for any consequential purpose", because then they wouldn't have a business.

It should be obvious, youre right. But people are being bullshitted and then blamed for believing the bullshit.

I'm convinced that this guy sees Musk and his outlandish statements and thinks that must be the secret to success and so tries the same thing, but going even further. What he seems to fail to realize, which is strange because what he does deliver in value shows that he gets it in other realms of business, is that you have to actually deliver something. It doesn't have to be your exact claims, but something approximating them.

Musk says he wants to colonize mars. He's currently testing his 2nd generation rocket that's capable of carrying 100 people. His car is orbiting the sun. Bezos says he wants to colonize space with a trillion people, so far he hasn't gotten so much as a brick into low earth orbit, much less even articulated how to create a trillion people.

But he built one of the worlds foremost and innovative logistics networks. I don't understand, he's not disconnected from reality, the existence of amazon proves that. So why the bullshit on space?

I tell people, if you know how this stuff works, you'll understand its a fugazi. It produces a statistically likely sequence of tokens (words) that resemble data it was built with. There's nothing intelligent about it, it cannot create anything novel. It is truly nothing more than a language model. Everything that comes out of one of these is a hallucination, in the sense we mean when talking about AI.

I think it's a poorly understood form of compression, a very lossy form of compression.

I think it's big corporate adherents know all that, I think, particularly after the internet and the industry it unlocked, smartphone and the internet access that they made ubiquitous, software developers are just looking for things to sell to people. All the innovations have happened already in the software world, but this big industry was built while this happened and they can't just pack up and go home. The truth is, you can't just sell software to users, you have to sell utility, and most people don't have a real need for software beyond what they already have available, so shiny new trinkets it is. They've got video streaming, communication, information retrieval, report generation, and that's it. You can automate stuff, but that's not the end user buying software, that's the end user buying a widget that software is a component of, and a part they really don't care about. A symptom of what I'm talking about can be seen in the ever increasing needless complexity people keep finding in their lives, the software industry as it applies to direct to consumer sales is very little more than hype and noise and marketing. It's empty calories.

AI is just another thing in a long line of these things, yesterday it was augmented reality, day before that it was IoT, the list goes back quite a number of years. The last real big innovations that end consumers bought that improved their lives was smartphones and video streaming. Everything an end user can benefit from software wise they already have. Easy communication, multimedia content and symmetry of distribution, near free information availability, I can't think of anything beyond those 3 broad categories, money maybe if you're into the bitcoin thing. Maybe "AI" as compression can help with local information retrieval when it's more mature, which is very powerful, but the branding and marketing around it as if it is a mind is not conducive to success on that front. Software is well on it's way to being a mostly business to business thing again, like it once was, which necessarily means a big bubble is going to pop. That's where the innovations are happening, but for us regular people it's all marginal improvement of what we already have as a side with a healthy serving of hype and disappointment.

If you believe that free people have a right to speak their opinions, which I do, any government action that hinders that is as a matter of fact an injustice.

All this language about "amplification" and "platforming" is a way to get people to forget that I think.

Maybe I am, but I don't think it's reprehensible for someone to have intimate relations with willing people. Doing other things, like firing people for ending relationships, or harassing people because they're unwilling, are reprehensible, but I don't see any real evidence of that from this article, only a single claim that is unverified and sounds outlandish.

You've just described a mechanism for the chilling effect, and why laws like this are to be avoided in free societies. The article is basically saying the same thing, the problem isn't the behaviors of the companies, it is the "unintended" yet totally forseeable consequence of these laws. The incentives set up by these laws lead to injustice for people.

Stalin exiled Trotsky. They were both socialist.

Just because people or groups are enemies doesn't mean they disagree on everything.

If you don't laugh you'll cry.

I'm beginning to suspect that Spacex and Boeing are in the middle of a PR propaganda war with one another. It seems to me that someone wants a lot of bad press for each of these companies right now, I would guess each other.

Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury in front of congress.

This type of behavior can be a liability, yes. It seems Musk is attracted to highly intelligent and capable women, and the work he does is in need of as many of them as it can get, so engaging with them is pretty likely to cause conflicts with company goals.

These are people's personal lives. We don't know what went on. What is acceptable? Whatever the participants find acceptable. It seems to me though from the article that none of the women being discussed here made a thing of it themselves, this seems like friends of theirs sending text messages to a newspaper. The only one of these stories actually involving the person in question is the flight attendant one, and while I can believe that it happened, I don't buy for a second that spacex cut her hours back over it. To me, this all looks like a nothing burger that some editor thought would be a juicy story, or that someone paid to have published. "Musk dates some women, they have relationship problems." "Billionaire propositions woman for a financially rewarding sexual arrangement." Big deal.

When a metric becomes a target it ceases to be a good metric.

Someone on HN posited that the models we use for economic performance are overfitted, that they no longer actually gauge the performance of the economy. The economy, after all, is about finding optimal distribution of resources, and ultimately, all resources are produced for the benefit of human beings, so if people's experience on the ground, in reality, is that things are bad, maybe quit telling them they're wrong and go find out what's wrong with your models or measures? Just a wild idea, what do I know.