I doubt that the engineers who choose AI chips are going to be influenced by the name. Artsy types might be, but they aren't the ones designing computers.

Can Musk even define "intelligence"?

Prosecution will be slow and by the time they get a conviction the money may have been spent. Shaming people sounds like a good strategy for getting money back quickly.

It's important to note that Weird Al seeks the approval of the artists he is parodying. Technically it's not likely in many cases he has to, since US copyright law generally protects parody, but he's a good faith actor who understands not everyone is going to want to be parodied. Still, the fact that he does seek permission gives him an extra layer of protection.

Yes, training AI on Nazis at Truth Social will be much more effective.

This small government philosophy sure does call for an awfully big government. Maybe they can get some Evangelicals to do the censorship for free.

I imagine it's the way in which you express your opinions that was viewed as problematic. But you seemed to make a concerted effort, as part of what you deemed a protest, to erase the actual posts.

I'm getting a clear sense of why you were given the boot.

I'm telling once you abandon the principle of retributivism, then anything can become a capital crime. It just simply becomes a system of revenge, and worse, where revenge is defined as whatever outrages the mob the most.

Apart from anything else, what happens if it turns out they're innocent? At least if someone is in prison, there's release and reparations from wrongful prosecution, conviction and imprisonment. If you kill someone and then find out later you got the wrong guy, not much you can do.

Beyond that there's a rather ancient legal principle that the punishment should fit the crime. While I want every child rapist severely punished, the fact is the child is still alive, and thus the principle is broken. If we can execute child rapists, are there are other non-lethal crimes that we should consider executing people for? How about rape of adults? How about defrauding old age pensioners? How about theft over a million dollars? How about theft of any kind?

You may say that's reductionist, but once you breach the principle, even for a notorious type of crime, you open the door for redefinition all the way down the line. And we've had legal systems where non-lethal acts, heck even non-violent acts were punishable by death. The Mosaic Code requires men who practice homosexual intercourse are to be killed, adulterers are to be killed, blasphemers, witches, rude children, death death death.

So while I can't say why you got permabanned on Reddit (or was it just a sub), which usually takes one helluva over the top post, your basic idea is incredibly problematic, and shifts punishment back across a legal principle that Cicero had established over a century before the birth of Christ. It means that a new principle (or an old one) involves the notoriety of a crime as the metric for punishment, and not the consequence. Consequence is at least to some degree objectively measurable; dump toxic goo into a stream, we can take a stab at what the damage over the short, medium and long term will be. Rape a child, and we can make some pretty good educated guesses as to what the short, medium and long term consequences for the child and their family will be. Execute people because you clutched your pearls exra-hard, and there is no line other than how upset you get by it.

In addition to the privacy issues, I don't see how this helps the investigation. It makes sense to track people viewing something like child porn, or perhaps videos advocating terrorism, but how does tracking the viewing of innocuous videos unrelated to the alleged crimes help? This would seem to be pointless or at best very inefficient. (If the answer is in the Forbes article, it is pay-walled.)

Maybe a few million. The Great Leap Forward, a decade earlier, killed tens of millions. The conclusion we can draw from this is that Mao really didn't give a damn about human life. The Great Leap Forward had been about showing the Chinese populace and the world how incredibly great Mao's version of Marxism was, and ending up in mass famine. So discredited was Mao by this that people Deng Xiaoping managed to sideline him and bring some sanity back to the government. Mao didn't like being sidelined by his underlings, so sparked the Cultural Revolution to destabilize Chinese society and wrest power from Deng and Co., which he did, and Deng and the other reformers were sent off to be "re-educated". In the end Deng won; after Mao's death and the attempted coup by the Gang of Four, Deng was "rehabilitated" and handed power, and it is Deng Xiaoping who actually turned China around.

Sadly the lessons of that period seem to have been forgotten.

I found the book fairly dull and stylistically confused. Some of that perhaps comes from translation, but the awkward plot and stylistic issues almost certainly are built into the story itself. I finished it only be sheer effort alone, because of its reputation, but honestly I found its reputation to be ill-deserved. It just isn't a very good book. I can't imagine subjecting myself to watching a miniseries version of it.

But why do these devices accept wireless input at all? If their job is logging, they just need to record data and have some means of off-loading it. That could be via a physical connection, but even if for some reason a wireless readout is required, there should be no need for it to accept wireless input.

Driving down the wrong side of the street may get you to work faster, but also leads to fatal head on collisions. But other than that, it can work!