831–840 of 1001 posts
Wishful thinking but it would be real great if a future leader destroyed this infrastructure. I'm sure they'll run on not using it but when systems like this exist they tend to find applications
Wishful thinking but it would be real great if an engineer poisoned these datasets with bait entries
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US values individual freedom, has porous borders, a diverse population, and a large land mass. Citizens would have to put up with some pretty draconian living conditions to ensure zero illegal migration. Even Reagan granted mass amnesty in the face of such costs. We can disagree on where the threshold of unacceptable intrusion into our lives should be. But significant change probably requires replacing the Fourth…
> Citizens would have to put up with some pretty draconian living conditions to ensure zero illegal migration. I don’t agree. It’s a matter of incentives. If you know entering the US illegally means you stand a high chance of being deported, have almost no ability to be employed and no access to any social services, the problem mostly solves itself. Lots of other countries ask why the US has problems other countries…
I.e. one must carry paperwork at all times, risk getting detained and beaten for going out in public (especially if not white or speaking non-English), masked men may enter your property or home with no identification and take whomever they like, no accountability for ICE abuses/mistakes, etc.
What about migrants who are legal? Or tourists who just want to visit on a visa?
Does the US really want a country with no migration nor tourism?
You also seem to think this problem is solved elsewhere, but Europe continues to struggle with surges of migration from conflict zones and poorer countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Convincing the Federal government to voluntarily relinquish power, or forcing them to do so is probably the hardest and least likely possible change we could make to our system of government. Positing that as some kind of easier more realistic stopgap vs essentially any other reform is bordering on madness.
Probably easier than convincing individual senators/reps and the part(ies) as a whole to give up their own personal power with things like Ranked Pairs voting, no? And probably easier to have Congress pass such legislation to draw a new line in the sand, even if it could be undone later, than doing things that would inescapably require a Constitutional amendment. The problem with the other reforms I have thought of i…
> Rather final ultimate authority needs to be distributed amongst the states.
Doesn’t require a constitutional amendment?
That would essentially require a rewrite of the constitution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably easier than convincing individual senators/reps and the part(ies) as a whole to give up their own personal power with things like Ranked Pairs voting, no? And probably easier to have Congress pass such legislation to draw a new line in the sand, even if it could be undone later, than doing things that would inescapably require a Constitutional amendment. The problem with the other reforms I have thought of i…
You think > Rather final ultimate authority needs to be distributed amongst the states. Doesn’t require a constitutional amendment? That would essentially require a rewrite of the constitution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It reminds me of when Eric Schmidt, then CEO of google, tried that argument about people's worry of google collecting so much personal data. Some media outlet then published a bunch of personal information about Schmidt they had gathered using only google searches, including where he lives, his salary, his political donations, and where his kids went to school. Schmidt was not amused.
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." - Eric Schmidt
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not gonna happen. The people who work at Palantir, if they’re not just there for the money, think they’re doing the right thing, they see themselves as keeping the country safe and improving government efficiency (and who could be against that?)
Nobody thinks that. They are there for money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It reminds me of when Eric Schmidt, then CEO of google, tried that argument about people's worry of google collecting so much personal data. Some media outlet then published a bunch of personal information about Schmidt they had gathered using only google searches, including where he lives, his salary, his political donations, and where his kids went to school. Schmidt was not amused.
Thiel lost his shit because Gawker mentioned he was gay in an article on their site. Something _everybody_ in Silicon Valley already knew. Then he goes and forms what essentially amounts to a private CIA. How about Musk? He felt he had a right to hoover up data about people from every government agency, but throws a massive temper-tantrum when people publish where his private jet is flying using publicly available da…
he got mad at gawker for deliberately outing him right as he went to meet the saudis for negotiations. a country that literally executes gay people. at best it strained the negotiations and made things awkward, and at worst could have put him in peril.
you dont just out people without their consent, and that goes for rich or poor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Are you being sincere with this comment? I’m in disbelief you could post this with good faith, but this forum requires me to respond to you with the assumption that you’re posting in good faith. First of all, the investigation for the fraud had already wrapped up years ago, with many charged. You’re falling for the propaganda that this was ongoing and swept under the rug, as pretense that apparently an occupying forc…
That was another separate series of fraud trials regarding Feeding Our Future no?.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well in my case I was referring to actual vocal conversations I've had with humans, either in person or on MS Teams. I suppose that there could be an extremely elaborate LLM to control humanoid robots to try and fool me, but I do not believe that's the case.
Yet. But another year or two of progress on AI deepfakes and you will be talking to a bot and be none the wiser.
you think a news site about tech startups run by their incubator -- who has serious interest in seeing these companies make money -- wouldn't run shillbots 24/7?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This ICE stuff is that scaled up to a multi-billion dollar federal agency with, apparently, no accountability for following the law at all. Apparently any time they do anything horrifying, they will just declare that victim as a "terrorist" or something, and their sycophantic supporters will happily agree. What I find amusing is that when the Snowden leaks happened and I would discuss it, when I said something like…
Yes, exactly. But, I’ll admit it took me until the republican primary before the 2016 election for this to register in my mind. I was born in the US in the 80s & fell into the “what you see is all there is” bias (and hadn’t read enough history before then either). Another opinion that I’m sure will get me downvoted is that this is the primary reason I support gun ownership by private citizens. I think having a chance…
it's starting right now, brother. time to put your money where your mouth is.
we'll see how many of these 2nd amendment uber alles types are actually chickenhawks real soon...