runsWphotons

The Rosenbergs were executed for espionage under the Espionage Act 1917, not for acting as unregistered foreign agents under FARA. They were exfiltrating classified nuclear secrets. This is an entirely different thing.

Unregistered foreign agents tend to receive a fine, if they are charged at all. Before the past decade even this was very rare, now maybe there is one per year. The maximum punishment is like 5 years in jail, and no one has ever been hung for this. The directive to conflate these only traces to Pam Bondi.

Most of your post is like this in that you speak authoritatively but fumble premises. For instance you clearly don't understand free speech law. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre IS protected speech. The Schenck case your quote comes from was overturned in Brandenberg 60 years ago and is considered a national judicial embarrassment.

Name one person ever hung for being an unregistered foreign agent in the US.

This seems like it would be way too dangerous for all sorts of security reasons.

Our survival as a civilization? I cannot follow at all what you are talking about. What threat?

I read the article as claiming that the Administration is implying it will harass or prosecute people for speaking or protesting against AI/data centers by deeming this to be "in support of China". I hope everyone agrees that would be a truly absurd breach of the first amendment, if it happened.

Letting the executive branch decide on a whim that certain speech is illegal because it would "further the goals of enemy X" would surely be a civilizational threat to America (if it actually happened), but that doesn't seem to be what you mean?

All the specific people mentioned in the article seem to be American [except arguably the three businessmen arguing for data centers--O'leary, Musk, Sacks], so I can't tell what the other guy is talking about either? Non-Americans do not generally have American speech protections unless in America legally (and then with some caveats). That's not America's decision!

What is your point? You agree people have the right to act on their beliefs to effect democratic change, right? Surely that includes making up their own minds about information.

linking .gov as a source for a claim the government is making lol

Absolutely? I don't think it does so much. People speaking different languages seem to have very similar thoughts. It's true that fluency is a wholistic performance, but I don't think there are any particular thoughts that can't be translated.

What does mind mean for you? Would you use the word for something not conscious?

Fwiw, I interpret poster above as referring to root of the word. The English root for mind has a strong connotation of requiring memory (and commonly in other IE languages).

In western philosophy, say in aquinas, the mind is something that can discern moral truths and reason about morality. It is "soulful".

I think it is good people are talking but there seems to be a lot of "forced optimism", especially by people obviously hoping to keep a channel open between themselves and the labs.

I think it isn't true that no one imminent is considering (1). Tsimmerman said he thought the job of math researcher was over as soon as he announced he was leaving the field.

I think the question is so far still open, but it is easy to imagine Tsimmerman was right. I haven't been impressed with the calls for "human understanding" as the really important thing. It seems to miss the point of why math has been funded (not exactly problems, but certainly not to ensure every theorem is understood either).

As a scifi comment, it is now possible to start thinking about some future AI system which decides if it will need to explain certain math to humans and to pick and train young people for that purpose.

Flamebait I guess but I think it is good we have several options to choose from already. If you don't like Elon there are several other models, and each can pick the one controlled by her favourite supervillain.

This is completely a figment of your imagination.

It benefits a few corporations in the short term but not America in general. And if the oil prices rise and stay high, there will be demand destruction. US sits on top of the capital food chain and will be hurt.

Hawaii is rife with ethnic tensions, not some exception.

No, we don't.

Also the officer should believe this threat is imminent.

When an officer has reasonable suspicion that a civilian poses a threat to his life, he can shoot them. Once police start shooting they are trained to continue shooting until the target is incapacitated. That's the law. Whether the recent shootings you saw meet that standard is up for debate.

Younger generations are probably more racist than their parents but not their grandparents. There are a lot of reasons this probably happened, and it wasn't something done to infants, but transpired over the last 10-15 years.

It wants Hyundai's investment and it wants to create American jobs and also have Hyundai follow the laws. The extremity of the right is fueled by an apparently prevalent reluctance to enforce any rules.

I didn't say it would've been legal, just nicer.

drive the fishing boat back to the submarine. harold holt swam to one it can be done

It would have been nicer to kidnap the fishermen.

Just means they declined to put their name on it directly.

Humbly, I think this thinking is part of the problem. The incumbents were crushed because they mostly all copied each other and are seen as part of the same system. There are Western parties which have behaved differently and were not crushed. It wasn't just a meteorological event.

Many actually do not seem to know this, especially in the political/think tank class. There are highly placed Democratic officials who blame inflation and point to this research.

I think whatever the surveys said, the egg prices/inflation actually had little to do with Trump victory and the left shouldn't be misled by this. People vote now for emotional reasons, reasons of identity, and these rational reasons are mostly cover--something you tell a pollster but not the real truth. Take note of anyone you know who gave this reason and see what they say about 6 months of manufacturing decline, slowing job growth, or about the inevitable inflation from tariffs...I bet most defend it in some way.

The right is now split into a faction that rejects foreign interventions and wants to withdraw, if not total isolationist then something in that direction, and another faction. At the elite level this other faction is ascendant. The lesson they have drawn from US military failures from Vietnam to GWOT is different from the former faction. In their view the problem is that we were not aggressive enough, we were too constrained by overly legalistic and conservative rules of engagement and various ideological goals which polluted the prosecution of the wars and prevented us from "winning". They DO want a more cruel, more aggressive force posture. They admire and defend Israel in large part because they see it as a model of a force which really believes in "winning". A substantial portion of the voter base is attracted to this, enthused by the prospect of aggressive campaigns in Latin America with relaxed rules of engagement, and sees the renaming to Department of War as a "based" declaration of this doctrine. The country is moving more in this direction and the more isolationist (kind of "Buchananite") wing is getting purged again, but with some concessions made to them.

I am not sure the left has any answer to this right now because it has discredited itself with so many, especially losing a lot of younger men (those under 21 heavily favor Republicans), and generally the country may simply be moving in this direction. I think be clear eyed what you are facing.

The jobs probably aren't disappearing because of AI but because of previous over-hiring and a slowing economy. It seems like a cover story to push people into accepting underemployment.

A politician disliked by the state facing criticism doesn't mean anything. What matters is when people say something the state doesn't approve of.

I commented about this on another thread, and probably most around here disagree with my general point there, but this fact amazes me. We have gotten all this tech creating a surveillance state but then it isn't even used to give better policing. You will just get mugged on camera by someone with ten prior charges and then be ignored by police.

What fundamental freedoms are people in DC going to lose? See my other comment---I think this is much less intrusive on civil liberties than adding more surveillance.

National Guardsmen may not find many guns if they arent searching people, but people will think twice about using them with guardsmen standing around. They will get into and escalate altercations where guns might be used less. There are plenty of prior cases where more policing has reduced crime like this, and DC was not doing enough, so this is going to be tried. If the police decide to work together with them enthusiastically, then even more can be done with the extra manpower.

I don't think public perception of police will change much, and anyway it always hovers around 50% confidence in surveys.

I think it looks like a normal venn diagram. Some things are similar and some different and it depends on what deployments or forces each has worked on. That's why NG troops are getting extra training in police duties and working together with normal police.