For anyone to actually care about climate change. If you're an environmentalist you need to fix your local economy first before anything else.

And it doesn't do any good to explain why climate change is going to make the economy worse. Nobody wants to hear your explanation. They want to hear that somebody is going to make groceries cheaper and rent cheaper. If you're not telling them that they've already tuned you out.

Remember when you're explaining you're losing.

What you're going to get is unpredictable weather caused by disruptions in the water cycle.

So for example a whole bunch of trails you want to walk are going to be closed because heavy rain washes them away. On the other hand you also probably are going to have droughts. Because you're going to get big sudden rain storms that do damage to the trail you want to walk followed by little or no rain...

There is no upside to what's happening here no matter what the oil companies tell you.

If it wasn't all being devoted to the singular purpose of eliminating wages.

Remember the problem AI is designed to solve is paying wages.

Did you notice how expensive beef is? Yes some of that is because of douopoly and monopolies. But a lot of it is because of drought. A lot of cattle had to be killed off and weren't replaced because there just wasn't enough water for them. Especially in Texas

Now we could be building giant desalinization plants with all this money but instead somebody has to lose their job to an AI...

It really does show how your priorities, such as lower grocery prices, always take a back seat to whatever billionaires want.

You damn well that I'm going to tell you how to raise your goddamn kids when it comes to vaccination and education.

I am tired of right-wing douche nozzles raising these little disease breeders full of wrong information and bigotry because that's how grandpappy raised them.

You have a right to impart your culture and values up to the point where you are just wrong.

Objective reality exists whether you like it or not. Measles is real. Ivermectin doesn't treat covid. America is not a Christian Nation. These are facts and you don't get to teach lies to children just because they popped out of your crotch.

If they can't keep up with custom hardware then somebody else is going to build it. What's more because AI is a technology that by design is going to consolidate into a few players who have access to training data (google, Facebook and maybe Apple) you are going to have companies so huge they are just going to want to make their own chips.

You've got these companies that a few changes in who makes the chips could drop their value by hundreds of billions of dollars. And you have investors buying in during those high-valuations.

I don't think AI will go away, the ability to replace paying wages is so valuable to the billionaire class that it's going to keep getting pushed, but I do think that it's likely that a bubble will burst and of course when it does it's going to screw over working people because it always screws over working people.

Plus we all know we're going to have to bail out the banks that wound out all the money to these AI startups because if we don't when they go down they take the entire economy down and us with it. And we're too much of a bunch of pussies to just nationalize them however briefly

OH! Well, then that makes sense.

(hah!)

Why? Has bureaucracy borne such great fruit?

In this case it absolutely does mean unaccountable, as the people writing regulations are not elected as intended. Congress is supposed to be writing the regulations, not bureaucrats. The President is supposed to run the government, which means being able to fire anyone who works for it. That is how accountability is maintained in a Constitutional Republic.

Then Congress should have established it as a Congressional Committee. They never had the authority to give their power to the Executive branch by playing a shell game with Constitutional powers.

I'm not arguing that it wasn't intended to be independent, I'm saying that Congress never had the power to do it. They wanted to avoid the hassle and electoral ramifications of making these regulatory decisions, so they tried to pass it off to the Executive. They need to get back to doing their job.

I know what it means, I just don't see how it can possibly be Constitutional.

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

Uhm, no. That third quote there means the President can say, "I need a Chief of Staff, so I'll create the position and hire someone to fill it.", that the Judiciary can say, "we need clerks, let's hire some", and the heads of agencies (who work for the President) can decide they need deputies to help run things, and hire them. And, as they are Executive staff, fire them.

Anyone who works for the President but needed to be confirmed by the Senate, can be fired by the President. Ambassadors, Cabinet officials, etc., all serve at the pleasure of the President. The Judiciary is a separate branch of government.

Most importantly though is Article II of the Constitution - "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." That pretty clearly means what it clearly means.

According to the Constitution there is an explicit hierarchy in the Executive branch. Article II begins: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

It does not say, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America, or whatever agencies Congress sees fit to create".

When did you think Congress handed its regulatory authority over to the Executive branch? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't anytime after 2000.

What? Is that satire?

US Constitution, Article II Section 1 begins: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

That's the civil service.

It has also restricted those powers and rejected delegations. "Humphrey's Executor", the decision underpinning independent agencies, has always been controversial.

I can't see a way to call Constitutional a quasi-legislative, quasi-judicial, agency ostensively under the executive branch but not under the control of the person in whom all executive power is vested. How can that not violate the separation of powers? It is very nearly the creation of a 4th branch of government.