nessbot

"But the stuff you learn in a PhD program is all published." - What? This is the kind of misunderstanding of knowledge that AI boosters present that drives me insane.

And last sentences conflate a PhD with a google search or even dictionary lookup. I mean, c'mon!

But it's not "direct access to every PhD in the world." You don't really believe that do you?

People saying things like "It literally knows everything..." unironically is half the reason some of us are bored of it.

Lenders? You mean bond purchasers? That's who lends money to the Gov.

> eventually cuts must be made.

This is logically (and in a simple way) false. Incomes could also increase.

The government's debt is not the same type of thing as household debt. Can you elaborate on how you think they are the same? Do you believe there are not other factors besides just credits being less than debits?

I get what you're tying to say, but this kind of phrasing does more damage by instilling a (mostly) false sense of learned helplessness.

The story[0] I'm referring to is about the Technology Transformation Services, which I think is also apt. Also, I would argue that the actions of government are more political than technological or, actually, that making such a distinction is naive.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43037426

How does this political story stay up but not the ones about DOGE? What gives?

This says more about what you know than the importance of said agency.

Yeah, and again, I'm saying you're incorrectly saying my comment fits that mold and I disagree.

I hear you. But like I said, I didn't make a personal attack or swipe. I pointed out that the person shouldn't confidently make claims for things they don't know lest they spread misinformation. It was a fair comment.

This type of talk just does the work of the authoritarian for them.

Agree that there are ways to say it nicer, but I still contend that what I said was not aggressive. The poster started with "Correct!" and they didn't understand the thing they said was "correct." I think it's fair to point out that they inappropriately made statements about something they didn't know. They even admitted to learning it afterwards. Its fair criticism and if folks wanna be making claims online they should be able to handle it.

How would you change the tone? I feel like that was a plain and matter-of-fact sentence. I get the term "misinformation" is feels loaded but it wasn't unfair to say.

edit and the fact that the poster did have the good sense to add an edit was part of the reason I decided to say something because telling someone who didn't would just be a waste of time

Then what you want is an amendment to the constitution. There's a process for that; this ain't it.

You got any source on the COVID coverup?

To the second line: cool, if that's what you want, then get your reps to write a law and have the rest of congress pass it and the president sign it.

I'm going to assume (foolishly) that this is an honest question. The answer would be: The DOGE situation as described in the article this comment chain is about.

That is simply not true. They'd have to go to congress to have the apportioned spending rescinded.

And what they are doing now is "skipping the movies and spending it on weed." Shutting down USAID, even if eventually Rubio came in and rolled that back is what you just described. That was an office created by congress.

Care to explain how so?

I never, and I mean NEVER, want to hear someone talk about "cancel culture" of the left ever again.

The executive branch can't decided what to spend, only congress can.

Its in the first article of the constitution.

and it's looking like a legit CONSTITUTIONAL crisis.

Indirect does not mean lesser. An ill-informed doctor might be just as bad as no doctor.

They did, you must have a pretty bad information ecosystem.

Terrified of what? and First inning of what, when did that inning start?

Dunno what the real reason is, but it's easy to see possible a intentional reason: Testing to see how it well it works and how other nations respond.

This requires such a shallow definition for the word "art." I think you're more just talking about images. Art is about more, including the process.

This is like a second-order appeal to authority fallacy, which is kinda funny.