There were a few cases of racially motivated lynchings of Black men by private mobs around the same era but those weren't officially sanctioned by the court system.
Space launches have never been "safe". It's always a risky endeavor for a variety of reasons.
But concerns over space junk are vastly overblown. Orbit is a big place and satellites can maneuver to avoid the riskiest paths. And if data center satellites ever actually get launched (might never happen) then they'll be in low orbit where any junk will burn up within a few years.
Nice strawman argument there. No one here is proposing changes to school or aviation security rules.
Merchant vessels typically used to carry a variety of artillery and small arms for defense against pirates and hostile navies. That practice largely ended when the UK and then the USA established global hegemony and secured the sea lines of communication for everyone. But now the USA is no longer willing or able to play that role, so either merchant vessels have to be able to defend themselves using deadly force again or else trade will largely cease along routes within range of shithole countries.
Yes, striking a data center in the US would also be an act of war. But deterrence isn't very effective against hybrid or "gray zone" warfare. Let's say a drone swarm launched from a random shipping container destroys an Amazon data center in Virginia. US intelligence analysts determine with 80% confidence that the attack was carried out by a terrorist group sponsored by Russia. Would that justify kinetic retaliation against a nuclear power?
There is value in hardening critical data centers. Whether that means placing them in orbit or underground or equipping them with air defenses remains to be seen.
The air defense systems for merchant vessels will need to be modular and portable. Many countries have legal prohibitions on armed civilian ships entering their waters. Which is stupid but won't change quickly.
Not exactly. Tourists are one thing, but US military personnel stationed in foreign countries typically operate under a status of forces agreement which limits the ways in which they are subject to the host country's laws.
Nah. There's no practical way to jam tight beam satellite data links unless you place the jammer near the ground terminal. And the US government has already stated that they would consider kinetic strikes on US-owned commercial satellites as an act of war.
Those are entirely different missions. A GBU-43 MOAB is used against soft targets on the ground. A GBU-28 is used against hardened buried targets. It's simply physically impossible to dig a big enough hole with a bunch of small drones or bombs: the only way to penetrate deeply enough is with a hard object moving really fast.
This is one of the factors driving the development of orbital satellite data centers. While satellites are also vulnerable, they are at least somewhat harder to hit than a stationary terrestrial data center. For now it's questionable whether such constellations are feasible due to concerns over launch costs and cooling but some people are taking it seriously.
All signatories to the Geneva Conventions are responsible for enforcing it. The USA never ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and thus has no responsibility to enforce it.
This may shock you but in agile, growing organizations employees sometimes have multiple job responsibilities. I've done a bit of recruiting even though I'm not a recruiter or hiring manager.
The old British Empire was hardly a an exemplar of free market economics. There were many independent companies but there were also chartered monopolies and price controls. We take basic economics for granted today but back then many leaders literally didn't understand the basics of how it worked.
Patents can be somewhat effective for vertical market software sold by companies operating in countries with effective rule of law. But for horizontal or consumer software the pirates and cloners can operate servers in other shithole countries beyond the reach of law enforcement. We'll probably see more political pressure to respond to that with widespread IP address blocks at national borders. Eventually every country may have some variant of "The Great Firewall of China". (I don't think that's a good thing, just stating that it's likely to become more prevalent.)
Mailing lists were never "fine". Discoverability is terrible. People change email addresses all the time. Subscription management remains an unsolved problem. Inboxes fill up. Legitimate messages are falsely flagged as spam.
Perhaps there are real problems with algorithmic feeds. But going back to mailing lists is simply impractical and never going to happen.
The only effective protection for software IP is hiding the logic on servers you control (SaaS). Anything released to execute on client hardware can be decompiled and cloned. This has always been the case but LLMs have made the issue more obvious.
People claim they want chronological feeds but hardly anyone actually does. With a chronological algorithm that incentivizes users to post slop more often to get noticed. In reality most social media users want priority given to major life events. Like if I haven't logged in to Facebook in a few days I'd prefer to see the announcement that my second cousin in Italy just had a baby prioritized at the top of the feed, ahead of the picture of what my neighbor cooked for lunch.
Yes, it still sounds ludicrous if you put it that way. If you want a contractual agreement for privacy then pay for it. Everything is available — for a price. But a civil agreement can't bind a counterparty to conceal evidence of a crime.
Individuals can sign up for enterprise agreements. An enterprise can consist of one person. Or run a local model.
It seems like some people seem to think that a chatbot should guarantee total privacy like a confession to a Catholic priest or something. That is ludicrous and unrealistic. It's a commercial service subject to terms and conditions. If you don't like it then don't use it.
You can make a reasonable case for adding a lot more classes in high school: statistics, nutrition, personal finance, etc. But ultimately it's a zero-sum game and to add a new class means removing an existing class. So what do we cut?
Customers who what privacy protections for AI chats are welcome to negotiate this in enterprise contracts. The major LLM vendors do offer that as an option. Customers can then enforce any violations in civil court (although this obviously wouldn't apply if the customer used the LLM for criminal purposes).
Trying to apply rationality in domains where it's ineffective is obviously a bad thing. In the real world, only a limited subset of issues can be reduced to logic and calculations. To believe otherwise is pure hubris, and if you've read the classical tragedies you know the results.
The problem in California is that competition for water doesn't raise prices. Much of our water supply is allocated based on property rights rather than as a commodity so prices for some users remain artificially lower than the market price. This causes waste and shortages. Eventually we'll have to reform the system but there's no political will to do so.
What a weird perspective. Other people have no particular obligation to spend their lives working on things that align with your narrow and subjective opinion on what benefits humanity.