lingrush4

You say this as if the side you're advocating for didn't start the war by killing over a thousand civilians.

Just in general, asserting that everyone will agree with your side in the future is such a bizarre rhetorical tactic. Do you honestly think this convinces anybody to reconsider their position?

Why are you surprised that people who sympathize with terrorists are called terrorists sympathizers?

Roughly 75% of Palestinians support terrorism (the number changes with every survey but it's consistently over 50%).

The lady in Minneapolis was using her car as a weapon to impede law enforcement operations. That's not really terrorism; insurrection would be a more accurate description. But she certainly wasn't a good person deserving of any sympathy.

What kind of dumbass title is this? 99.99% of the world is not afraid of silicon valley.

Claiming Arstechnica is jumping the gun is pretty generous to them. They are deliberately lying. OpenAI's default policy is not to share user data without a subpoena. This is standard; every company does this. No reasonable person would position this as "selectively hiding" data. Yet that is exactly how the propagandists at Arstechnica described OpenAI in their headline.

Oh, so the commenter is not actually talking about the BGP anomalies at all? He's just hijacking the comment section to advocate for nuclear proliferation?

If having nuclear weapons did anything at all to prevent cyber attacks, the US would not be getting constantly victimized by cyber attacks.

Governments don't ban any of those things.

I wish I could argue the "regulate" point but you failed to provide even a single example AI regulation you want to see enforced. My guess is the regulation you want to see enacted for AI is nowhere close to being analogous with the regulation currently in place for knives.

Clicking "no thanks" on their cookie banner does absolutely nothing. What a sleazy website.

Content providers knowing when I watch their content is not concerning to me. They're on the other side of a transaction with me; they have as much a right to store the details of the transaction as I do. Even Blockbuster had that information.

What's concerning is when third parties start snooping on transactions that they are not involved in.

What's your point?

If the technology is even somewhat capable of detecting actual guns, it will probably save far more lives in the long run.

In my experience, juniors are absolutely terrified of asking any sort of question at all during a meeting. Senior engineers are far more likely to ask interesting, useful questions.

We hire juniors so that we can offload easy but time-consuming work on them while we focus on more important or more difficult problems. We also expect that juniors will eventually gain the skills to solve the more difficult problems as a result of the experience they gain performing the easy tasks.

If we stop hiring juniors now, then we won't have any good senior engineers in 5-10 years.

It wouldn't be newsworthy if we could trust our representatives not give extra weight to the opinions of the people who yell the loudest.

Sorry to ruin your mudslinging, but if you read the second sentence of the linked study, you'll see the American voters' choice of president has nothing to do with this:

> Leave rates are lower in the life sciences and higher in AI and quantum science but overall have been stable for decades

Capital gains are risky to generate. Many investments completely fail and when that happens, investors get very little tax relief.

If you increase capital gains tax, the more risky ideas will no longer be viable investment vehicles even though some of them would have been successful. Across the entire economy, the net effect will be less innovation, stagnation, and loss of power relative to foreign countries.

Tax rates are carefully tuned to maximize tax revenue without unduly disincentivizing production. To change them purely based on vibes would be catastrophically stupid.

Please don't vote.

As the Democrats reminded us regularly back when they had total control of social media, freedom of speech as a legal principle only applies to government actions.

There is no detail at all about what caused these accounts to get suspended. The Guardian just wants us to blindly trust this leftwing propaganda group when they say it was due to political censorship rather than a consistent application of Facebook policies.

Yes, I do. Though in fairness, they were the ones pushing for censorship.

Their case for approval is much stronger than Netflix's regardless of who is president.

Netflix is the largest streaming service in the country right now. It is 4x larger than Paramount+ in terms of total subscribers. Netflix acquiring Warner Brothers is naturally going to receive more scrutiny for this reason alone.

If a police officer potentially stalking his ex is the worst failure mode this guy can come up with, let's keep the Flock cameras.

With the right access controls and approval processes, that can be fully solved in a week.

What do you do for work?

I'm not aware of many jobs where employers don't care how fast the work gets done.

One can only hope these accommodations are not being granted to medical students.

With the exception of NPR and PBS, most American institutions dedicated to planting fake stories are not government controlled.

Sounds very similar to my childhood. My parents told me I couldn't eat sand because worms would grow inside of me. Now I have trust issues and prefer local LLMs.

What an absurd request. Where's your archaeological evidence that humans were egalitarian 10000+ years?

The idea that we didn't have wars in the paleolithic era is so outlandish that it requires significant evidence. You have provided none.

Any CEO that retains underperforming teams just because the overall company is doing well is a fool.

If you want to avoid getting laid off, make sure the product of your work is more valuable than your salary.

The point seems fairly obvious: make it impossible for others to prove you wrong.

I fully believe that OpenAI is essentially stealing the work of others by training their models on it without permission. However, giving a corporation infamous for promoting authoritarianism full access to millions of private conversations is not the answer.

OpenAI is right here. The NYT needs to prove their case another way.

> I am aware of one employee who had a panic attack at this moment, and HR hung up on them during this panic attack not caring at all about their wellbeing.

One can only hope this employee survived.

The people of DC have spoken. There's nothing wrong with throwing sandwiches at strangers in their city.

No, you have no idea who is on the boat. That's very different from the US military having no idea.