This is an article about the FBI. If it were the CIA they would've already overthrown the Canadian government and installed puppets to do their bidding without openly asking. The FBI is too busy entrapping retards into committing terrorist acts in the U.S. to have time to go after Canadians, retarded or not. Canada should ignore them. They're probably more harmless than the ATF that would shoot their dogs and possibly even their moose. Just tell the FBI to send any requests through a respectable and fearsome agency like the BIA or USDA if they want an actual response.

I think we all know nothing good ever came from that place.

Republicans end individual mandate.
Republicans let the subsidies expire.

"Why would the Democrats do this to the American people??"

Does is matter much if you lose a job because of AI instead of offshoring or any other reason? What prevents a company from eliminating jobs because they've contracted with a third party that provides the services for them that may be done in let or whole by AI and not reporting it because they're not replacing anyone with AI themselves? They may not even know to what extent AI is being used by that third party to even be able to report it. Maybe they hired a consultant that's actually an AI masquerading as human.

If the government wants to do something actually useful it should try to find ways to make it easier for people lacking jobs to find employment. This just sounds like a shakedown signal whereby politicians alert companies that they'd better open their pocketbooks and contribute to the reelection fund lest they find themselves the target of legislation designed to shit all over them. Fortunately for these companies, politicians are stupid enough that they'll play themselves and wind up with yet another case of regulatory capture where the companies make rules to their own benefit even beyond what politicians can extort.

This will probably die in committee or somewhere else along the way after someone pays up, but it won't do anything useful. Unless it also measures jobs created because of AI or productivity gains in other workers resulting from its use, it's a one-sided look at the problem. They may as well require similar reporting on all of the negative impacts of electric vehicles that ignore any benefits they bring.

Just wait until they get old and start bitching about the gammas (or whatever they wind up being called) that can't sit still long enough to watch a microdrama and spend all of their time consuming nanoquickies in VR-space while macrodosing on LSD. Maybe one of them will buy /. and vibe code support for Unicode, so it won't be all bad.

One of my state's Republican senators is all-in on chemtrails and "Solar Radiation Modification" lunacy. It's curious how these are the same people who think humanity isn't capable of affecting the climate by burning fossil fuels and pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

I've found that the ones being used by the search engines are generally quite good now. Google search fell off a cliff, but the AI does a better job at pointing to relevant information than their search results do. The problem for Google is that everyone else has an AI that's about as good. There's no reason to use Google's when competitors now give results just as good.

My productivity has improved because I'm spending a lot less time hunting down information on the web about some API or error code. The rest I don't care about. Even dumb chatbots have been decent at frontline customer service for a while now.

Somehow that's still the least terrible thing he ever did. What a dick that Cheney was.

Do you think when G.W. joins him Cheney will shove his hand up Georgie boys ass again and puppet him around for old times sake?

The beauty of this is that they didn't specify much beyond that it had to be local content. There's nothing stopping Netflix from producing a show using local talent about how the local politicians are a bunch of horsefuckers. I'm not even Australian, but I might even be interested in watching an Australian show that shits all over their stupid politicians. Or since I'm an American Incan just wait for the inferior American remake.

I'm more curious to see how other posters react to this and to contrast it with their opinions on tariffs.

If people wanted it wouldn’t they be buying it of their own volition? Maybe you're interested is some uniquely Canadian cultural art, but most Canadians don't seem to care, just like most American consumers don't actually care about buying American products because they'll gladly purchase the cheaply made Chinese version instead when given a free choice.

If I were to tell you that these were mostly H-1B visa holders being cut would you change your tune and be incredibly happy since you're one of the posters here who seems to have a particularly fiery passion against them?

It'll only be stunted for someone who really should have bought a more expensive and powerful laptop. If it's aimed at students who will be using office apps, browsing the web, and using an email client then it will be more than good enough. I bought my mother a MacBook Air (I think it was a second generation model) that she used for almost a decade to do about as much. That only had a dual core Intel CPU that I think was sub-2 GHz and a lot less than 8 GB of RAM.

Of course we pages have grown increasingly bloated over the years, but a few extensions to block ads and unwanted scripts goes a long way. Even Chrome is reasonable with RAM use in those scenarios. Not everyone needs a 16-core CPU and 128 GB of RAM. I don't even need that most of the time, but it's nice to have when it is needed. Most people are t ever going to need that, at least not until web pages become even more bloated with ads and scripts.

Apple practically already sells this product. It's just that it's an iPad with a separate keyboard attachment. There's nothing stopping them from building it as a single hardware unit and running OS X instead of iOS on it. It could cost about the same $600 that the iPad and keyboard attachment cost if bought separately or even less since it's integrated and doesn't need a touchscreen if it's strictly a laptop.

I think there's a bigger issue at play. A sale is a legal contract involving two parties each exchanging something with each other. If one of those parties is non-human that immediately creates a question as to whether it can form a valid contract in the first place.

I'm sure someone has just had the bright idea to chime in about corporations not being people but being able to enter into contracts without considering why it would be horrible if they weren't able to, while also simultaneously failing to consider that unions aren't people either and would be similarly restricted. Good thing we've firmly lodged the pin in that hand grenade before anyone did anything stupid and had it blow up in their face

Laws can certainly be drafted to govern to what extent an AI agent can legally act on behalf of or at the behest of some actual person, but the laws aren't there yet.

There are certainly addicts or other similar categories of people who will actively make poor choices, but there's also the matter of people who are acting on limited information and a the misbelief that what they're are doing is their best choice possible. People are not oracles and cannot get it right every time even if they have a good average. There are plenty of examples of where you can get two groups of people who will accuse each other of acting against their own interests. In some cases, it's possible that both groups could be wrong. I think you would agree that engaging in criminal behavior is against a person's best interests, but numerous studies have shown that even criminals on average tend to use rational approaches when engaging in criminal acts.

Nature tends to select against traits that are less successful even if it's a long and slow process. In another million years, humans might be a lot better at solving whatever problems filtered them up to that point. Of course the universe likes to invent new perils and humans will be filtered by those as well. Consciousness could start as some kind of adaptable random number generator, but give it enough time and filter effects and the numbers aren't so random anymore and conform to the set of numbers that favors survival. We as humans can already build these for specific, limited problem domains. I suspect in time we'll be able to make one that's general purpose and has feedback mechanisms to adjust itself at a higher level. If it can simulate its own life and death well and fast enough, it can evolve in a much shorter time than it took humans.

Research into chimpanzees is fascinating as they represent something that's possibly on its way to developing human levels of consciousness. Some researchers even hypothesize that humans developed it to be better at the same Game of Thrones activities that chimpanzees engage in. We just got there sooner than they did, but eventually their number will come up if they stick around long enough.

Only in storybooks and fairytales do you find battles of the forces of good against the forces of evil. In the real world its battles between the morally gray (each convinced of their own goodness) at best and more often between two different evil armies. Sometimes you wind up rooting for assholes because they're fighting an even bigger group of assholes. Sometimes it works out that they manage to destroy each other in the process.