Much as I agree with you from a moral standpoint, from a legal standpoint it is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

If you want to make the argument that "data about you" is "your data" that's fine, but the presumption here is that it's the airline's data, and it is offering it freely (as in speech, not as in beer) to the government. Where is the fourth amendment implication? It is not your "house, person, papers, or effects," it is the airline's and they're happy to let the government sort through it.

Sigh. No it isn't. The airline is not a provider of medical services, it is not regulated by HIPAA.

While I agree that this is not something I want the government to be doing, what part of a database maintained by the airlines constitutes your person, house, papers, or effects? If the government demands access that would be one thing, but if the airlines say "hey, wanna buy our data?" and the government says "hell yeah" that is something else.

The median income in New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles is higher than $83K. At least I hope it is.

>This is irritating AF even though I have the money in the bank because I get a percentage back.

The percentage you get back is a small part of what goes into the costs that the credit card industry charges consumers and merchants.

If no credit cards offered any kinds of rewards, the credit card companies could lower consumer and merchant fees and interest rates and still make the same amount of money.

Pretty much yes.

People buying essentials on credit has been around for a very long time.

It's never a place you want to be, but it beats starving or freezing to death.

Apparently, "safeguards" mean "don't let the AI say something that hurts feels" rather than "don't let the AI act in a manner that is dangerous and unlawful." I say this because, apparently, Anthropic's systems have been leveraged by nation state actors for hacking campaigns (though details of this are minimal and read like marketing spiel about how awesome their tools are rather than giving information on what actually happened).

Agreed he's truly despicable. I'll also agree with dangerous as anyone who has that much money is dangerous by definition. There is nothing wrong with my understanding of ethics or principle. I also think SpaceX succeeds in spite of Musk and not because of him.

With all of that said, I fail to see how anyone's proclivities or politics play into whether or not a company they own will succeed at any given objective. I'd further argue that if you believe that someone is dangerous, you're fucking stupid if you pretend that they cannot achieve things that are clearly within their (demonstrated) capability to achieve, and the only thing you accomplish is convincing people they're less dangerous than they are.

>Leave them there permanently but give them a way to access TikTok so that they can live cover from the scene to other disbelievers.

Like Stanley Kubrick did in 1969, but without TikTok. Authenticity for the win.

is the heart of a planet-destroying weapon system.

Other countries aren't putting US-registered SIM cards on their daily missile attacks.

TIL that the archaic definition of "fastidious," based on the original latin root, is "disgusting" or "disagreeable." Which, to be fair, is a label I would apply to a virus that causes something as horrible as Lupus.

Because Virgo sounded too much like Virgin Galactic and Cancer sounded exactly like "DO NOT WANT."

The most recent test proved capability of doing this.

Elon is a tool and a con man, but I never understood the hate boner people have for SpaceX.