goodluckchuck

Voters tell their names and affiliations when registering to vote. Registration rolls are readily available public data.

I’m just trying to evaluate whether born-within-the-borders citizenship makes sense by imagining myself in that situation. I don’t really see citizenship in another country as a positive, because I only hold loyalty to one nation. Even if I wanted my kid to be a citizen of some other country… like… if I want to play 3rd base for the New York Yankees, I would expect that any team worth joining would have to let me join. I would never imagine that there’d be loophole that allow me buy a ticket and then sneak into the dugout and take the field. If folks are collecting citizenships like Pokémon cards for specific benefits related to each one, I’d be concerned that they don’t really hold loyalty to any one of them… and thus shouldn’t have citizenship in the US. After all, you’d never be allowed to play on the Yankees and the Red Socks at the same time.

Birthright citizenship is so weird, because when I think of my son’s birthright, I imagine things he’s entitled to because he’s my son. He’ll inherit from my estate, he’ll enjoy my love and encouragement and support, etc. The location of the hospital where he was born doesn’t really have anything to do with it, but now I have an entirely new fear about foreign countries claiming my child if my wife happens to give birth early while on a vacation. Like, I want to go to Israel, but don’t they have compulsory military service? I wouldn’t want the baby to accidentally become an Israeli citizen and forced to serve for some foreign army. Same with China. I’d love to see the country, but they’ve had some weird and draconian laws like the one child policy. For all I know they take some children to be raised by the state. Whatever their laws are… I don’t think they should apply to my children.

I think the whole point of making someone leave is the possibility that they may not be allowed back in. If staying was a foregone conclusion then there’d be no point in leaving.

Families should always eat at the restaurants that produce the most excellent cuisine. /s

Regardless of our different readings of the SCOTUS’s recent opinion, statutes are a poor process for imposing tariffs. The legislative process is intentionally slow and difficult. It’s suited to permanent laws, not diplomacy and negotiations.

When I buy a laptop from Apple, they used my money to build the next generation of laptops… which inevitably come out within a year. I wouldn’t necessarily believe Iran was deceived without more.

I think it makes sense. You wouldn’t want to hire an employee who’s intellectually incapable of helping customers commit a crime. You’d want to give them instructions, and have them follow their instructions.

Since they are working for the Federal government here, doesn’t the supremacy clause trump state law and allow them to deny / retain that data?

The difference is that Netflix isn’t facing a situation where they have run out of product to sell. If Apple wants to sell 10k laptops, they need to have 10k laptops. If 10k customers sign up for Netflix, Netflix gets that revenue and they can worry about optimizing their selection / service later.

Yeah, if you know the business is a fraud, it doesn't matter that your work isn't fraudulent in and of itself. It's like being hired by bank robbers to be their chauffeur. There's nothing illegal about driving, but if you know they're using you to get away from a crime... you're a getaway driver.

I think it’s like shoes. Shoes are generally better than callouses at protecting your feet, providing traction, etc. Almost everyone accepts the trade-off and wears shoes as opposed to going barefoot. To be sure, your feet lose some of their toughness. You may become reliant to some degree on the tool. I know that when my kid started wearing shoes, walking became actually a bit harder and be fell a few times. The shoes were a little clunky and lacked the same sensation. He changed he gait to accommodate, but over-compensated. They took a while to get used to wearing. AI also often feels a bit clunky and lacks the same feel. However, I think some people are confusing the shoes for the feet. The shoes don’t do the walking. The LLM is the words, but not really the ideas. If you stand or pose in shoes, move your legs around and wait for the shoes to take you somewhere… that’s not going to work.

Different leadership.

If some in your experience erred on the side of leniency, then it stands to reason that others might err just as egregiously in the opposite direction.

In fact, your anecdote suggests erring is the norm. We should thus expect punishments to be inappropriate in one direction or another. An appropriate punishment seems rather unlikely.

> In 2 years time, I would be surprised if the strongest LLMs are available for general use at all.

I would be surprised if the public ever had anything close to the strongest LLM. It’s not like nuclear bombs were created by the private sector, then the government started the Manhattan Project and seized them all for itself.

They probably had Fable-quality models in 2016.

I think that’s a bit dramatic saying the US hates them, but yes to your other point. The US is taking the position that it has more to gain from having strong and prosperous trading partners than it does from exploiting those nations and draining them of talent.

That’s relevant and should have been included in the warrant, but I still blame the Judge here.

When it comes to whether a meme is a threat, the image largely speaks for itself and there’s no way you can reasonably read that meme to be a threat.

It’s clearly political and taking sides and potentially offensive, but there’s nothing to suggest anyone is going to take to violence. The judge should have seen the picture and denied the warrant.

This phrasing disregards the value of those traits. For example there are very clean and nice public restrooms at my local park, they may be objectively better products and I use them sometimes, but I usually use the one in my house.

The CCPA clearly violates the 1st Amendment. If you're out in public, then people are allowed to see you, to remember it, to communicate that it happened, etc.

I think there’s difference between A) whether ships are traversing the straight, and B) whether the straight is open / closed / could be traversed.

It’s very well possible that the straight is safe, but the vessels are unnecessarily cautious.

I keep seeing the phrase “the harm” as if we’re all supposed to know exactly what that means. What is it?

California can do a lot to private companies, but the supremacy clause allows the federal government to do what it wants. If a business wants to engage in these illegal-in-California practices, they could partner with the federal government.

Edit: Now that I’m doing the research a partnership isn’t even needed, just a contract. Which makes sense, the feds cannot hire a private individual to do what would be illegal for them to do themselves… conversely, a company who is contracted to do federal business also enjoys supremacy by virtue of acting for the feds.

This reminds me of how some famous artists would paint via their studios wherein assistants put most of the pant on the canvas, under the direction / modeled off an example, and with the signature / embellishments of the named artist.

If 14% of the PhDs employed by the U.S. Government was 10,109, then there were about 72,207 total. That's about 3.2% of the civilian government, compared to 2.1% in the public workforce (and 1.3% of population).

So, the government tends to employ PhDs at a substantially higher (~50%) rate than the public workforce.

Edit: Yeah, oops, people generally use public / private the other way around.

You're 100% right, but I think the friendship should be more important.

I've had friends keep things that I lent them, but that didn't ruin the friendship.

I've had friends say mean things, but that didn't ruin the friendship.

I've even gotten into a fist fight with one, but tempers calmed and the friendship endured. (I mean, the US fought two wars against England)

It's important to know who your friends are, and the knowledge that Europe is not a friend, is worth more to me than Greenland.

Okay, tell that to the US Border Patrol.

It's more like helping a friend move house, but he complains about you the whole time you're trying to help, and there's no pizza or beer, and when you ask to have the dusty old bread machine from the attic, they get super possessive and say they'll fight you.

The "if invaded" qualifier is fair, but what I heard from Danish authorities was that they would not wait to be fired upon. They said, if US forces came, then Denmark would "shoot first" regardless of whether the US had fired a shot.

I think you're being a bit dramatic. My voice is an outlier, and heavily downvoted. Being exposed to different ideas is a good thing. If you're not going to question your own views, at be grateful that others will.

If Europe wants North America to intervene in Europe's territorial disputes, then Europe should allow North America to have dominion over North America.

It's hypocritical for Europe to claim North American territory, and then claim we should be concerned about a European nation claiming European territory.

Russia and Ukraine are both on the same continent. They're neighbors. That's a much tougher decision than whether a European nation should control Greenland... that's not even on the same hemisphere.

The logic remains sound, but the facts are different. There was real territorial gain / loss in the Pacific theater. Japan's imperial motives make sense, because they actually did conquer a lot of Asia / Pacific Islands. The US's defense / retaliation motives also make sense, because the US did re-take its territory and force a surrender. So, the proffered motives don't appear to be a pretext.

There's also an absence of an apparent ulterior motive. The US and Japan were also on opposite sides of the world, and had little to no prior history. It's not clear why (or along what lines) they would cooperate with each other in the presence of such real territorial conflict.

Germany is a somewhat closer case. Germany and the US had a shared history and tradition. Socialist / Communist politics were widespread in both, and the US was largely divided as to whether they would support or oppose the German socialists / war. So there is a much stronger case for an ulterior motive here. Indeed, Germany indisputably wanted many of their own people to be killed. Their leadership's desire to kill jewish German is beyond dispute... so as it relates to other classes of Germans (e.g. those who fill the Wiermact ranks)... I don't think we can rule out the possibility on the grounds that those people were (also) German.

However, to get back to the territorial aspect, Germany conquered a lot of land, and the Allies took it back. So, a closer situation to the current stalemate in Ukraine would be WWI. If they're not making any progress in terms of territory... what progress do they think they're making? The main change I see from here is that people are dying... so that's probably the whole point.