...that an LA art studio so quickly developed an AI chat bot that is superior to anything Google has managed to put out in the past year in the field of AI.

I've yet to see it worth donating my time to test. I keep thinking Google is could do something interesting, but 'free' is too expensive for what it can do right now. Credit where due though, it isn't bad at referencing GAS REST API. GPT4 rather consistently suggests using fully deprecated methods.

Lew Rockwell has a think for flare, I am glad to see this article got some attention even if misunderstood. There is no way you can make an argument against the criminalization of potential crime without addressing the issue of drunk driving. His argument is that while we should be diligent in the persecution of trespassers that persecution of potential trespassers is going too far. In business management there is an idea that you should not focus on punishing people for what they were doing while they should have been doing something else, focus on what they were NOT doing. People should be busted for not driving safely, but are we using the best metric?

It is more of a legal argument than a moral one. If a person is driving dangerously should they not be cited if it is determined that they are not legally intoxicated? Why not instead bust people for driving dangerously and only allow for intoxication to be an enhancement. The law is HIGHLY technical, and Rockwell likes to often attack it in highly technical and extreme ways. His articles tend to be worth controversial discussion and not group think.

Ayn Rand is not the beginning or end of libertarian thought. She was a contributor. She also supported the idea of using war to promote US interests, possible the most anti-libertarian position anyone could take. Just because something has a founding in Libertarian principles does not mean that the conclusions that individual comes to is representative of all Libertarians.

Simpler than that, Intellectual Property is incompatible (and an erosion of) with a capital theory of property rights. Can't visit youtube right now, but the first result if you search for "Stephan Kinsella" gives a great lecture on this subject.

While I am not sure how it works exactly in Europe, "Tax Exempt" in the United States is only an exemption from filing because you are stating up front that you do not intended to produce "profit". There is lots of other paperwork you need to do instead. The only "tax break" is for those making donations to legally recognized "charities".

And as beliefs go I know ASCAP would completely disagree with you. ;)

In communities where there is already motivation to "be all you can be", this new requirement will mean that marginally successful students will not graduate. In less motivated communities it will be a motivator to drop out sooner. If you want to encourage more students to take Algebra II, try convincing them on the merits, not with threats. This plan works on the same flawed logic of price fixing.

As long as people seem to be foaming at the mouth to impose all kinds of "requirements" on people, why not require that all high schools make available the opportunity to meet the states high school graduation requirements, and let them graduate.

Relating to price fixing, minimum wage will always be unlivable, and "high school graduate" will always be "unskilled".

1) What incentive would the bank have to hold your money for free at zero reserve?
2) Similar to what you were saying about bonds, how would this be different from, or why not let the market, determine the reserve rate?

Google is doing well.
Irish Government is going bankrupt.
Just on face value, which group is being the most responsible with their money?

Is it just me, or does the idea of taking resources from one group of responsible people and giving it to another that are clearly incompetent counterintuitive? IMO, the best example of the failure of "trickle down economics" is giving money to the government. The logic makes sense though: a majority of people do not gain direct monetary profit from Google. Government likes to throw wealth around like sand on a beach. Google has lots of smart people that will probably survive a swift kick to the face, and when the government starts throwing the money around, there is a pretty decent chance some of it will come my way one way or another, at least relatively to leaving Google with its own money that it earned. So in democracy, we can trade A for B, take back A, then trade it for B and C, take back A again, and trade it for B, C, and D. And apparently, this is how you build an economy. And what do we do if people claim to feel cheated by this system and don't want to play along? We throw them in jail, call THEM a cheat, and get to take all their stuff.

TL;DR Fuck institutionalized theft.

They are clearly evil for not paying their fair share. I don't think I can support a company anymore that obviously hates police, fireman, and teachers. The government should shut them down. If not for taxes, what has Google really done for us? I mean, I use their search engine and most all of their apps every day, I even bought one of their new phones. I think it is time after all that loyalty that they do something for me! Those greedy bastards...

There are many ways to be here legally and not all of them include citizenship. People come here temporarily for work and school in addition to vacation. Further, how can people not be denied the right to vote but then also need prove that they are not just a tourist?

Personally, I think you just made the best example of "here legally" != "legal citizen", and how it can be get complicated.

No. Under a capitalistic, free market, private property system it is generally accepted that zero scarcity = zero cost, as far as "taking it to its logical conclusion". Some business models just don't work or depend on fraud / deception. Creating artificial scarcity is a form of fraud and deception.

There were many that thought that the printing press would start a revolution where no author would ever write again if books could just be printed and shared with anybody. There was a revolution... but I don't think it quite went the way the incumbent industry thought it was going to go.

THANK you FOR making THAT more CLEAR for EVERYBODY.

Just word of warning, if I ever hear someone say, "I made an informed decision today! I bought the hardware that says 'Works with Windows' on it. That is what we use, right?"

I am going to *facepalm* at them very very loudly.

Technically, "Works with Windows" just means that a driver was written. I do not believe it makes any claim to its functionality or quality assurance. There is only an implication. It would be just as informative to put on the box "Window users should buy this product. The greatest barrier to driver development is hardware manufacturers that go out of their way to obfuscate how a device works. Whether or not a device has software to make the hardware more functional is an important business decision that depending on the product will determine their long term viability. If there are "restrictions" on fraudulent and deceptive advertising in addition to promising that nothing was added to the product to make it more annoying to use or develop for thoroughly covers any remote value a product might gain from a "Works with Windows" sticker.

This is pretty cool. I hope it actually shows up on more than one product, and purchased by more people than just Richard Stallman. It is something that may or may not catch on to a certain segment of the market, and not just the Linux community. And remember, this is a standard being proposed by the FSF, not a new law being proposed.