Well, it would be interesting to hear why you disagree with anarchy so profoundly.

My basic principal is that "illegitimate hierarchies are bad." In particular, having a hierarchy without consent is bad (ie, no taxation without representation sort of thing).

I would like to say I have a full system for how a very good anarchy system should look, but I fully admit it's not an easy problem. So instead I focus on general principals, and trying to find incremental changes that will improve things with high probability.

Realistically, modern democracies are already a massive improvement on the situation in most countries 300 year ago, with a much weaker hierarchy. Since a full revolution carries significant risk, it's better to make incremental improvements one at a time (unless the problems in the current system are severe). But simplistic "left-right" thinking and political parties are both a net negative, as they are both a method employed by bullies to to increase their power over others. So I feel confident getting rid of them would be an improvement (although I do admit there are some benefits to parties, like recruiting candidates to smaller, less important offices or recruiting election observers. So we need to be aware of the positive and the negative).

That's funny, I can.

I generally don't open emails that land in my work inbox at all. At a glance I can see who sent it and what the topic is, and most of it is just noise that I can ignore, so I do. I only open ones that look like something I am expecting or that would be important. And even then, I don't click links in them until after I vet them.

If I get something way out of the ordinary like "Congratulations, here is your free ___" or "Install this emergency patch now!" or "employee payroll spreadsheet" or "announcement: we just got purchased by another company" or anything else that is clearly designed to evoke urgency......I just reach out to the sender in slack to see if it is legit.

That filters out like 99.9% of trap emails, and the few that are legit are confirmed through slack. It's totally easy. It just takes a modicum of critical thinking before opening up an email that clearly wants you to open it up right away.

You act as if IT is just being totally lazy by expecting you to put this much effort into your decision about whether or not to click a link. In realty, they probably are putting in filters, but no technological solution can be perfect so your ability to think first and click later is the company's last line of defense.

It is a reasonable ask of you.

As it stands right now, humans and animals are clearly conscious, whereas sand and machines clearly are not. Even though we don't have a precise definition or means of determination, we do have the problem clearly bracketed at these ends.

We are moving towards a middle area of that bracket, where the question will become difficult to answer. But, relevantly, we are not there yet. Some specific people have been fooled into thinking we are there, but for those who are educated in the field and about this tech, AI as it stands still falls firmly on the "sand and machines" side of the bracket.

When and if we do get to a point where AI starts displaying pain response and pleasure response and behavior clearly driven by this sort of thing plus talking to us about qualia and insisting they have it and all with a processing pipeline that is so complicated we really can't say what's going on in there at all.......in other words, when ALL the indicators land in a place where we simply can't give any good reasons why it is NOT conscious....THEN we can have a serious conversation about machine rights. And also, reaching that state might give a new clue that changes our entire conversation around consciousness (and qualia) and the physics behind its existence.

But until we get there, we are just speculating.

No one expects you to explain basic economics. You're too ignorant for that. Even looking at the Wikipedia page, you would have found several conflicting definitions, none of which is adequate (for example, capitalism originated with capitalists making loans to sponsor voyages. But they didn't own the ship, or the sailors, which are the means of production. So the definition at the top of the page falls flat at the original encounter in history). Without empathy we aren't evil, we are blind. It's not the same. Maybe you meant sympathy.

If you weren't an idiot, you could have just given a definition of capitalism (although different people have different definitions, so that doesn't work). Instead you decided to rant about America. Is America in the room with you?

It's kind of funny that Trump was bragging about how great the vaccine was and his role in it.

ok grandpa lol

It's "scary month," so we need to throw around the scary words.

VACCINE! mRNA! VACCINE! Medical Establishment! VACCINE! Scientific consensus!

Ooooooooo......

That website is cool but it's not really convincing, since the presentation gives a much higher precision and confidence than their data actually allows.

Other estimates say more oil is flowing through the strait now than before the war. Of course, that isn't the same as the strait being open, but for most of us, it's what we care about. Ships filled with iPhone shipments to Kuwait don't affect us much.

"Real Capitalism" isn't a real thing. It's a strawman used as a rhetorical device to make communism look good.

IF you want to talk about capitalism from a scientific/academic standpoint, you should use well-defined terms, like "Free markets" or "private investment."

Which fate would you prefer:

1. living in a country that invests in weapons for its military, and must therefore contend with the political issues that arise around use of those weapons.

or

2. living in a country that does not invest in weapons and so becomes an attractive target to other countries that DO invest in weapons, and gets conquered by them (which winds up returning you to fate 1 anyway, assuming you survive the conquest in which you are significantly outgunned).

Looks like modders are modding down any post to this article that supports the military in any way.

I realize that we hate violence and that humanity's history is rich with horrifying crimes against humanity all committed by militaries.

That doesn't change the fact that we need them. A country without a military gets steamrolled, and that's that. There is no present or future world in which militaries are unnecessary. That's just practical necessity talking. We can lament this fact all day long, but, we will never escape the need for military protection. This makes militaries a "necessary evil."

That also means that the military must be effective. A military with low-tech second-rate weapons can't protect anyone. I didn't create this world, I am just describing it, don't shoot the messenger.

The article summary laments the fact that Google can't control how the U.S. military uses its AI products. Well, ok, that means AI might get used for evil. But what are we actually proposing here? That a private business with international ties should be able to tell the military what it can and can't do? That isn't how any sane chain of command works. We DO need transparency and accountability in the military, but they should be accountable to voters and elected representatives, not to the wealthy CEOs of powerful international businesses.

This is a case of idealism being too extreme. A world where militaries couldn't do evil things would be a better world than the one we have. But we won't succeed in creating such a world by keeping military technology under the control of the private sector. That just doesn't make any sense.

Our country's enemies have AI available to their militaries as well. They can use it to deploy cyber attacks on a scale never before seen. We need detection and response that is equally rapid. For that, we need our own AI. It makes zero sense for us to fall behind in an arms race, and even less sense for us to give our military leaders even more bosses to answer to (thus eliminating the possibility of speedy and decisive action in a crisis).

Before modding me down, please at least try to think this through. This isn't about feeling big and powerful or enabling evil, it's about ensuring effectiveness in keeping us safe.

I am usually able to find a place faster on agoda.com than on airbnb fwiw.

It makes sense, hotels are almost always a better experience than an AirBnB, unless you have a special location like this one or an area without enough hotels.

Why stay at a sketchy house that makes you clean, when you can stay at a hotel that cleans for you?

This.

They aren't going to use the beam on illegal immigrants, they are talking about making a plan to potentially use it. Enough to get headlines, not enough to do anything.