421–430 of 475 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the war on terror is/was as real as the war on drugs and the war on christmas
Someone must tell the 200,000+ dead Iraqi civilians that the war was fake.
IANAL, so I can't comment on the legal merits of any of it. From a practical/business perspective, I can see the government's position. It's very simple and it makes sense. Here's an analogy that I think is apt: We use Solidworks, Altium Designer and JetBrains tools for our work. Imagine a scenario where each of these companies has license terms that restrict their use to certain domains or types of products they --f…
Which is very different to labelling them a national security risk instead of just not awarding them contracts.
I don't know what analogy would drive the point home. Imagine a password management system where the people running the company have an ideology that leads them to believe that their system should not allow anyone to secure anything used in military applications. Well, that's a security risk. And no contracts should be granted. Cause and effect. There's no confusion here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They did remove the slogan. And no, the slogan didn't prevent evil, but both its initial adoption and change might have reflected leadership intent (or maybe it was just PR?).
Why can I still see it then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is a very short term perspective. National companies often employ locally and pay taxes and have a stake in your long term interest. A hostile power - and China to the US is a hostile power - has no such stake. Quite the opposite.
> National companies often employ locally and pay taxes and have a stake in your long term interest > A hostile power [...] has no such stake. As someone that grew up in Detroit, reading this is basically equivalent to science-fiction for me. If you think domestic companies have some sort of special stake in your country, you're misinformed.
Let me put it this way: American companies sell you a bad car and lay you off to give a CEO a bonus.
Chinese dictatorships put you into reeducation camps if you're a Muslim dissident or unapproved member of a religion. China tells the Catholic Church who to appoint as bishops and the Pope spends his time criticizing...anyone but China.
China pumps metrics tons of drug precursors onto the black market which accidentally find their way into Mexican drug labs and...are imported into Detroit.
China backs our national enemies because they are friends to anyone who opposes us. China funds Russia. China buys Iranian oil.
Chinese hackers steal US trade secrets.
And on and on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It happens in a lot of ways. People call things violence, terrorism, matters of public health, or war to justify whatever it is they want.
No, this isn't just an overused rhetorical device like all politicians do, those examples are the flimsy legal argument the Trump Admin uses in court, frequently as justification to break the actual letter of the law.
Anthropic may win this but strategically it was just plain stupid. Mythos was blocked for just enough time for OpenAI to just catch up with Sol and get lots of enterprise customers.
Mythos development was never blocked. And this case wasn't even about mythos.
I think this both overstates and understates the case. The evidence being weak does not invalidate the decision; as the court notes, the government gets substantial deference on matters of national security. The invalidation comes from the fact that this is clearly retaliatory behavior for speech; and the evidence for this is fairly strong since the administration has made public statements to that effect. The eviden…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Speech is violence" is very popular with the campus groups that want to ban speakers they disagree with. I'm not sure if it's still going on, but a few years ago the same crowd kept insisting that "silence is violence" which is even more ludicrous - if you're not parroting their critical race theory talking points at every opportunity, YOU are committing an act of violence.
I wish the people down voting you would take a moment to explain why. Not because I agree with you, but because I don't know about this and I am curious and would appreciate a calm rational person to explain why they disagree with you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All parliamentary democracies. If you have the majority, you can’t even be removed through a vote of no confidence.
But you have a head of state who can, in theory, remove the head of government at their own discretion, right? In the US the head of state and the head of government are the same person.