I've heard of those famed supernovae that were visible with the naked eye in the middle ages, and I've always wished I could see one too in my lifetime.
I might just be lucky before I go nova myself.
I dunno. China is a "market socialist" system -- which is a contradiction in terms. If China is socialist, then for practical purposes Norway and Sweden have to be even *more* socialist because they have a comprehensive public welfare system which China lacks. And those Nordic countries are rated quite high on global measures of political and personal freedom, and very low on corruption. In general they outperform the US on most of those measures, although the US is better on measures of business deregulation.
It makes no sense to claim Chinese courts have a lot of power, although it may seem that way â" itâ(TM)s supposed to seem that way. One of the foundational principles of Chinese jurisprudence is party supremacy. Every judge is supervised by a PLC â" party legal committee â" which oversees budgets, discipline and assignments in the judiciary. They consult with the judges in sensitive trials to ensure a politically acceptable outcome.
So it would be more accurate to characterize the courts as an instrument of party power rather than an independent power center.
From time to time Chinese court decisions become politically inconvenient, either through the supervisors in the PLC missing something or through changing circumstances. In those cases there is no formal process for the party to make the courts revisit the decision. Instead the normal procedure is for the inconvenient decision to quietly disappear from the legal databases, as if it never happened. When there is party supremacy, the party can simply rewrite judicial history to its current needs.
An independent judiciary seems like such a minor point; and frankly it is often an impediment to common sense. But without an independent judiciary you canâ(TM)t have rule of law, just rule by law.
Hereâ(TM)s the problem with that scenario: court rulings donâ(TM)t mean much in a state ruled by one party. China has plenty of progressive looking laws that donâ(TM)t get enforced if it is inconvenient to the party. There are emission standards for trucks and cars that should help with their pollution problems, but there are no enforcement mechanisms and officials have no interest in creating any if it would interfere with their economic targets or their private interests.
China is a country of strict rules and lax enforcement, which suits authoritarian rulers very well. It means laws are flouted routinely by virtually everyone, which gives the party leverage. Displease the party, and they have plenty of material to punish you, under color of enforcing laws. It sounds so benign, at least theyâ(TM)re enforcing the law part of the time, right? Wrong. Laws selectively enforced donâ(TM)t serve any public purpose; theyâ(TM)re just instruments of personal power.
Americans often donâ(TM)t seem to understand the difference between rule of law and rule *by* law. Itâ(TM)s ironic because the American Revolution and constitution were historically important in establishing the practicality of rule of law, in which political leaders were not only expected to obey the laws themselves, but had a duty to enforce the law impartially regardless of their personal opinions or interests.
Rule *by* law isnâ(TM)t a Chinese innovation, it was the operating principle for every government before 1789. A government that rules *by* law is only as good as the men wielding power, and since power corrupts, itâ(TM)s never very good for long.
They don't need AI for that. Teams - and pretty much all Microsoft products - are honeypots designed to collect data.
Well, no so much "honeypots" in the case of products that employees are forced to use at their workplace: they're no honey needed to attract them and get them to give Microsoft data. If you disagree with Microsoft's privacy invasion, you lose your job.
That's the genius of Microsoft's particular brand of invasiveness: instead of convincing individual people their products are good enough to relinquish their privacy for (Facebook), or convincing a large part of the internet to let them sneak in their trackers (Google), Microsoft convinced the bean counters at most companies to install their spyware and ram it down the throats of people who need to make a living. Disgusting...
Anyway, the AI thing is just the turd on top of the shit cake.
Why are we wasting time, money and research into something we know already?
Once again time wasted , money spent and no action taken.
Once again , there is no reason to refute the fact that we are on course for extinction
with only a 5% chance of changing trajectory.
Once the bottom of the food chain goes its gone forever.
What's gonna stop obesity among Americans isn't permanent standard time. It really, REALLY isn't that.
A good start would be making healthy food that isn't 1,000,000 calories per pound, and not made of fat and sugar mixed in unknown chemicals affordable. And taxing the living shit out of junk food. And getting people to stop eating supertanker-sized servings.
The question is simply, can an agentic LLM process do workload X for cheaper than a person? If yes, then the job is gone.
Typical AI shill answer (and the word "agentic" in the sentence is a dead giveaway too).
Wrong logic: a person's job should be gone if your "agentic" thing does the job cheaper AND at least as well.
As always, AI shills conveniently forget to factor in the quality of the work produced.
The reality of AI is, while it might be cheaper than real workers, it also enshittifies the entire world. And that's a fact.
Does it work without a Facebook account and 24/7 creepy corporate surveillance?
Oh...
The issue is: how many people did AI displace?
Hmm no: I trust a coal miner to produce better code than an AI vibe coder.
In English, every word can be verbed. Would that it were so in our programming languages.
