Actually even the big republican states will not give up their power to make the 48% of their population that is not Republican count as Republican votes. Democrat states do support this because it would be a gain for Democrats overall, but I'm sure they would be against it if the population of other states was minority Democrat.
Is even shooging against the law now?
The Epstein files are full of both Democrats and Republicans (and probably every other political party you have heard of). Nobody in power was ever going to push for their release, since it would be full of implications for themselves and their friends. The side *not* in power will push for the release, safe in knowing that it won't happen.
It seems like they are coming up with a fake release now. Purposely-obvious redaction will discredit it and even exonerate those who are shown, and foot-dragging will not be fought at all seriously.
I saw something that might work: make the districts elect 5 representatives, using proportional representation. This would keep the politicians local, which Americans appear to like. This does mean about 5 parties will be in congress, not more, but judging by what happens in Europe it would not be much different, any fringe party is forced to immediately merge with another and there seems to be about 5 already.
I think this also makes gerrymandering very difficult, though it might be best to just outlaw it. Districts are drawn by a computer with the only rule that they be as compact as possible.
Actually it would work if the electoral votes were proportionally allocated in each state according the popular vote in that state. This would actually result in the same winner as the popular vote in every presidential election in history. The problem is not that somebody in Wyoming has 4x the voting power of somebody in California or Texas. The problem is the fact that the winner in a state gets *all* the electoral votes. This means a member of the minority party in California or Texas has -1 (NEGATIVE 1) voting power, in that their existence adds to the population and thus the electoral votes that go to the candidate they are against.
The stable genius jr. has concluded that fusion technology is pointless anyway. Coal and oil are the future!
That's your tell that fusion has a promising future. Some people aren't like a stopped clock (broken but occasionally correct by sheer coincidence), so much as like a compass whose needle has been magnetized backwards and always points south (always precisely the opposite of correct, and therefore informative if you know to negate their indication).
Q: What's in the box?
A: We don't really know, lol, but it seems to work okay!
Q: Will it keep my data secure?
A: There's no way to know, let's just hope for the best!
The instruction to "eliminate political bias" is in fact an instruction to require political bias. No government AI will be allowed to think thoughts that Trump doesn't approve of!
I'll be surprised if I find out EOs have any authority outside the executive branch of the federal government. Otherwise a presnit could just unilaterally ban abortion, change federal, state, and locals laws and tax rates, disband Congress...
I think that AI, as deployed is harmful to society.
So join ANTIFAI - anti-f*-ai.
Though it might get you labeled as a ter'ist. Especially if you don't buy the products they're pushing.
For Aldi, which uses Instacart, I assumed it was because there is no 'fee' for pickup, but they have to pay someone to shop for you. I consider the difference a convenience fee.
That said, by not shopping in store, I end up getting only what is on my list and end up paying FAR LESS than I would if I was wandering around.
his isn't a dead end. There has already been massive success with AI just over the past 2 years.
Agreed that AI (in general) is not a dead end, but any particular implementation of AI might be. OpenAI et al are betting billions that their approach will turn out to be the best one, but it really is a bet; there's not guarantee that tomorrow the next DeepSeek won't come out with a better algorithm that obsoletes all their investments.
Apple has not participated in a meaningful way, and they will not catch up in this race.
Apple can always buy out whichever company they decide has what they want. It'll be pricey, but Apple has plenty of cash on hand.
That's why the huge expenditures, it will be 'winner take most'. Apple will have to pay someone for access to the best AI and at that point it won't come cheap.
Why will it be "winner takes most"? AI isn't like the Internet where there are network-effects that make first-mover status a huge advantage -- e.g. if I could write a better Facebook than Facebook today, it still wouldn't get used by anyone, since Facebook's advantage comes from its huge user base and my new platform wouldn't have one.
With AI, OTOH, anything the first-movers do, Apple can (eventually) copy and improve upon, a strategy they have used successfully many times in the past. Stepping back and letting others figure out what the works and doesn't work, on their own dime, seems like a good approach. Why burn money on what might be a dead-end, when others are happy to burn their own money for you?
Do nothing = win? Curious strategy.
Apple isn't doing nothing -- it's continuing to do the things that it has always done, like selling iPhones and computers and streaming services. Those things have always been profit centers for Apple, and they continue to be.
The other thing that it's doing correctly at this point is not losing its head and betting the farm on AI. Other companies would be wise to follow Apple's example.
What's the point of having a national military if you can't use it to pump taxpayer dollars into corporate coffers?
*scenario*
"Fox company, we'll airdrop a licensed mechanic and a licensed parts salesman onto your position around 0930, as soon as they finish repairing some stuff the enemy captured last year and make their way back to our side of the lines. Division says hold your position as best you can until then -- and remind the riflemen not to use their weapons as clubs, as that will void their warranty. It would be better for the overall war effort to let you position be overrun."
"No, Davies can't fix the autocannon even if your lives depend on it. Division says to shoot him in the arse if he so much as touches it."
"A mind is a terrible thing to have leaking out your ears." -- The League of Sadistic Telepaths
