Ah, I had missed Trump accounts because they originally couldn't hold individual stocks according to how congress defined them in the legislation. I was not aware Trump and co were trying to do an end-run around the legislation by arguing that the law doesn't prohibit corporations from donating individual shares.

However, that's a pretty new development, is controversial, and its unclear how it would really work, especially in tandem with the other rules.

Its a little tricky too, as children generally don't have suitable investment accounts that can hold publicly traded shares. I'm doubtful they even legally can open those accounts.

So what are they going to do, issue a gazillion single paper share certificates? What a shitshow that would be, the fees and shipping alone around dealing with that for a single share would be nuts, not to mention the hassle of redeeming them, and the untold numbers that would be misplaced or destroyed. And I'm still not sure children can own them, or sign the agreements required to get them.

What else could the do? Create beneficial trusts for every child? Whose going to administer that? and again the fees and management expenses around it would be nuts all for a $150 space-x share?

It might be reasonable for him to set a bunch aside, and as children reach adulthood, let them claim them at that point.
If the idea is that the kid can't sell it or whatever until they're an adult anyway, its probably fine. It'll be income maybe when they receive it, so that could work out badly for some kids though, if they have to sell it to cover the taxes on it, because they don't have a job yet. Especially if its appreciated to a couple thousand or something. (How are splits etc handled, do they get one or more? Or worse... reverse splits on a single share?)

Statistical contortions might provide copium, but don't prove anything. I gave you a straightforward parameter median household income. Something economists have been using for generations. You had to cherry-pick — and your cherry is rotten, because you complained about the period of COVID lock-downs, much of it presided over by your champion.

And you provided no citations. No wonder, your moderation is so high :)

Also Trump is wrecking the economy and nobody wants to acknowledge that

Because it just is not true. Median household incomes in the US are just steadily rising (inflation-adjusted) since he took office in 2024.

that presented themselves as "male" were paid more per task and perceived as more "human-like" than their "female" counterparts

Those complaining loudest are the ones, who can't define the term "woman".

The question was about sea level rise.

If the rising waters coincide with other climatic events, such as rainstorms and high tides, the phenomenon could swallow beaches, chew away bluffs and coastlines

There is a narrative that oh, a few cm of sea level rise is no problem, it's just a little higher water. It isn't.

However, the kinds of multi-million-dollar mansions that celebrities buy aren't the rickety perched-on-the-edge-of-a-crumbling bluff houses built in the 30s and 40s. They tend to be built-by-high-priced-architects homes that had civil engineers to advise about the stability of the foundation.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entert...

If AI is ruled a serious risk that requires a government kill switch you won't be running any open weights models on hardware you control. I expect that's what the FSF is afraid of. That's why they refer to it as hypothetical technology as in "assuming such a kill switch was developed".

It might seem far fetched but consider that you are probably (based on the American readership of this site):

- not permitted to buy more than a few grams of effective cold medication per day and have to show ID, which goes in a tracking system, in order to do so.

- while you are allowed to purchase microcontrollers, if you install this on them they are illegal to possess

- possession or use of all manner of chemicals, combinations of chemicals and shaped metal considered dangerous will get you prosecuted with various degrees of zeal

The big AI companies, who already possess the most effective possible actual kill switches, seem oddly enthusiastic about the whole thing.

Not just downlink, but the inter-satellite bandwidth and latency is also likely to be a problem. I saw an analysis of what it would take to build a big datacentre, and there the cooling really does become a problem. Not the radiators so much as the plumbing to move the heat around. So everyone is talking about lots of little satellites, but that means you're restricted to a handful of cards locally. It's going to restrict the kinds of jobs you can do when the next rack over is a thousand kilometres away.

That's how it already works.

It's not. Full disk access is sticky. When you grant it, the app has it until you go into settings and revoke it. It's not like sudo, it's like running that app as root, with no permission required after the first time. On Linux to get the same effect you have to edit a text file with root permissions and give the program passwordless sudo privileges, which should make any competent Linux users' hair stand on end.

And the next step will be "See, we can't allow full disk access." And then macOS will cease to be usable.

People have been "predicting" this slippery slope thing for ages and it hasn't happened.

These satellites would be in LEO

Sort of. They'd be in probably lowish sun synchronous dawn-dusk orbits, a narrow band following the terminator where the sun always shines.

and fall back to Earth after 5 years anyway.

Yeah. Thus "you generally need to rebuild your entire infrastructure... every five years or so."

The server hardware will be obsolete by then anyway.

The server hardware maybe. Not the power plant, (extensive) cooling hardware, infrastructure. These aren't GPUs floating in space, they're the entire computing, communications, cooling, power etc. infrastructure. The every five years thing would be like building a datacentre and everything supporting it in the middle of the desert and then nuking it every five years and starting over from absolute scratch.

If the cost to orbit is low enough, and there are no land taxes or electricity costs in space, and it solves the locality and latency issues for them, it starts to make more sense.

The cost to orbit, whatever it is, is pretty much money on top of whatever it would cost to build in a remote location on the surface. Taxes are minimal, zero or sometimes effectively negative for remote development on Earth. If you want to build a datacentre in the middle of the Sahara you can probably convince Morocco or someone to give you money. Solar panels are bit more efficient in space, and you get to use the 24 hours a day, but you also have to toss them every five years and buy (and launch) new ones. Along with everything else. And latency is going to be worse, not better. Your servers are whipping around the planet in polar orbits on the terminator. The minimum distance they are from any point on the surface is going to be about 300 km and that's going to occur for a few minutes a couple times a day. Most of the time they're going to be half the planet away.

I watched Scott Manley's video when it came out. He's right, the technical issues everyone seems to focus on aren't great, but they really aren't that bad. The economic and latency issues are the killers.

As far as I can tell nobody really has any consistent idea what "kill switch" is supposed to mean. Eg. https://www.scientificamerican...

OpenAI and Anthropic already have kill switches, from the power cord through to account bans. If they don't want anyone using their model they can do that. Likewise, if the US government is sufficiently motivated to order a service provider to stop providing that service, they can absolutely do that. I get the feeling the actual companies are hoping they can implement something that has lots of buzzwords and does sort of what their "guard rails" do, and everyone will stop bugging them about it.

Naturally the FSF imagines some hypothetical technology that allows the government to reach into your home to shut off the matrix multiplies running on your own computer.

Excellent pedantism sir!

Not everyone shares your personal passtimes.

Technology isn't really the problem. We've got most or all the technology to do what the GP suggested. What we lack are engineering experience, infrastructure and good economic reasons to do it.

Europe had all the technology required to build a casino in the Nevada desert in the 16th century, but it took four hundred years to get around to building the first one in Las Vegas.

There's lots of desert where nobody really cares what you do, and even more ocean. We don't like building in those places because they're far away from where we want to use the services, difficult and expensive to access, and have issues with cooling, power supply, etc.

But all those problems are worse in space, and you generally need to rebuild your entire infrastructure, from power plant to GPU, every five years or so.