Sorry, but poor excuse for racism is poor and wrong.

Europe has far more tourism, especially to developing countries and does not have the same issue. This has also been going on for decades so if it were those evil foreigners, why is it only now just becoming a problem.

The answer is, it isn't the foreigners. The cause is the large anti-science and anti-vaccination movements that have sprung up in the last 20-30 years and have become particularly popular in the last 10. If we drew a Venn diagram of anti-vaxxers and racists we'd also find a lot of overlap.

"Free" clinics... What are you, some kind of Columnunist like those dang people over in You-Rope?

Poor people should die without medical care because they cant afford it... That's Freedom Fries health care. None of that caring about people, helping the sick or poor... That ain't in the bible.

If we don't stop this kind of thing now the next thing you'll they'll start demanding European style happiness.

I'm not talking about the *content* of the site. That doesn't matter to if it runs and works and produces revenue.

The *content* is almost entirely due to Musk's political leanings, and is a shitshow. But it still manages to create feeds for millions every day.

>Yeah they've managed to keep their website from completely collapsing, mostly thanks to you ridiculously overworked H1B employees.

Remarkable, though, isn't that? Twitter continues to run just fine after firing over 70% of the engineers who worked there. Seems like he may have been right and it was a bit bloated? Lol. Your hatred for Musk has blinded you to when he's right.

>Before 2000 the government paid for 70% of college tuition.

What ever are you talking about? The government never paid 70% of college tuition. That may have been the case in some small parts of the country but was never nationwide by any means.

The so called 'viable competitor' would have to abide by this law as well.

It's just not viable for this level of company to be liable for what travels over it's networks. It's the site streaming the work and the comsumer that is to blame. The carrier is neutral.

Because human biology is an incredibly complex system, you can never prove anything definitively. You can only have degrees of uncertainty. So they presented their case, and explained their conclusions. I don't know how you can ask for anything different.

And "correlation is not causation", while being true, is highly misleading. The two are not completely disconnected. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, no matter what popular opinion might wish.

They gave specifics. You want the opposite. The list of ultra processed foods is larger than the list of "regular" foods.

Lincoln was a Free Soiler. He may have had a moral aversion to slavery, but it was secondary to his economic concerns. He believed that slavery could continue in the South but should not be extended into the western territories, primarily because it limited economic opportunities for white laborers, who would otherwise have to compete with enslaved workers.

From an economic perspective, he was right. The Southern slave system enriched a small aristocratic elite—roughly 5% of whites—while offering poor whites very limited upward mobility.

The politics of the era were far more complicated than the simplified narrative of a uniformly radical abolitionist North confronting a uniformly pro-secession South. This oversimplification is largely an artifact of neo-Confederate historical revisionism. In reality, the North was deeply racist by modern standards, support for Southern secession was far from universal, and many secession conventions were marked by severe democratic irregularities, including voter intimidation.

The current coalescence of anti-science attitudes and neo-Confederate interpretations of the Civil War is not accidental. Both reflect a willingness to supplant scholarship with narratives that are more “correct” ideologically. This tendency is universal—everyone does it to some degree—but in these cases, it is profoundly anti-intellectual: inconvenient evidence is simply ignored or dismissed. As in the antebellum South, this lack of critical thought is being exploited to entrench an economic elite. It keeps people focused on fears over vaccinations or immigrant labor while policies serving elite interests are quietly enacted.

Cloud computing = someone else's servers = somebody always looking over your shoulder.

It's the security state's wet dream.

I suspect that a more fundamental problem is what you would need to preserve.

Embryos are clearly the easier case, being small and impressively good at using some sort of contextual cue system to elaborate an entire body plan from a little cell glob(including more or less graceful handling of cases like identical twins, where physical separation of the cell blob changes requirements dramatically and abruptly); but they are also the case that faces looser constraints. If an embryo manages to grow a brain that falls within expectations for humans it's mission successful. People may have preferences; but a fairly wide range of outcomes counts as normal. If you discard or damage too much the embryo simply won't work anymore; or you'll get ghastly malformations; but there are uncounted billions of hypothetical babies that would count as 'correct' results if you perturb the embryo just slightly.

If you are freezing an adult; you presumably want more. You want the rebuilt result to fall within the realm of being them. That appears to not require an exact copy(people have at least limited ability to handle cell death and replacement or knock a few synapses around without radical personality change most of the time; and a certain amount of forgetting is considered normal); but it is going to require some amount of fidelity that quite possibly wont' be available(depending on what killed them and how, and how quickly and successfully you froze them); and which cannot, in principle, be reconstructed if lost.

Essentially the (much harder because it's all fiddly biotech) equivalent of getting someone to go out and paint a landscape for you vs. getting someone to paint the picture that was damaged when your house burned down. The first task isn't trivial; but it's without theoretical issues and getting someone who can do it to do it is easy enough. The second isn't possible, full stop, in principle, even if you are building the thing atom by atom the information regarding what you want has been partially lost; though it is, potentially, something you could more or less convincingly/inoffensively fake; the way people do photoshop 'restoration' of damaged photos where the result is a lie; but a plausible one that looks better than the damage does.

The fraught ethics of neurally engineering someone until your client says that their personality, memories, and behavior 'seem right' is, of course, left as an exercise to the reader; along with the requisite neuropsychology.

It's different from humans in that human opinions, expertise and intelligence are rooted in their experience. Good or bad, and inconsistent as it is, it is far, far more stable than AI. If you've ever tried to work at a long running task with generative AI, the crash in performance as the context rots is very, very noticeable, and it's intrinsic to the technology. Work with a human long enough, and you will see the faults in his reasoning, sure, but it's just as good or bad as it was at the beginning.

Shouldn't the ACLU and EFF be devoting their efforts to ending the Valley Transit Authority's comprehensive video surveillance of all its bus and light rail passengers first?

https://www.marchnetworks.com/...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

What's been going on with the VTA over the past twenty years makes the deployment of LPR cameras in San Jose look like a joke. An LPR system records license plates, but the VTA records comprehensive video and audio of every single passenger who rides on it. That includes where those passengers get on on off - exactly the sort of "tracking" that the ACLU and EFF condemn.

Exactly when did all those MTA passengers consent to give up their privacy? If privacy is sacrosanct for people driving on public roads, what about people on public transit?

Correct. This is why I don't like the term "hallucinate". AIs don't experience hallucinations, because they don't experience anything. The problem they have would more correctly be called, in psychology terms "confabulation" -- they patch up holes in their knowledge by making up plausible sounding facts.

I have experimented with AI assistance for certain tasks, and find that generative AI absolutely passes the Turing test for short sessions -- if anything it's too good; too fast; too well-informed. But the longer the session goes, the more the illusion of intelligence evaporates.

This is because under the hood, what AI is doing is a bunch of linear algebra. The "model" is a set of matrices, and the "context" is a set of vectors representing your session up to the current point, augmented during each prompt response by results from Internet searches. The problem is, the "context" takes up lots of expensive high performance video RAM, and every user only gets so much of that. When you run out of space for your context, the older stuff drops out of the context. This is why credibility drops the longer a session runs. You start with a nice empty context, and you bring in some internet search results and run them through the model and it all makes sense. When you start throwing out parts of the context, the context turns into inconsistent mush.

Is this the same Klarna that has already been through one cycle of being super bullish about AI and then having to re-hire some actual customer support?