Imprison them for months or years while you process their applications.

The problem is that this costs the American taxpayer billions, whereas if you give them an SSN and release them they start working, paying taxes and contributing to the American economy - So instead of costing the taxpayer, they do the opporite.

Most refugees do follow the law and report to their hearings as ordered. Recently, those hearings are where ICE is often waiting to haul them away after they report as instructed.

help those who should be helping themselves

So a mother whose husband has been killed by the secret police, who has been gang-raped and who is struggling to escape with the clothes on her back to protect herself and her nine and six-year-old children should be helping herself?

Walk me through what she should be doing to help herself. Thanks.

See, I think where a lot of us differ here is, It's not the USA's problem when a foreign government does to it's own citizens.

You may lack empathy - And you're not alone - Millions of other Americans have no empathy either until they themselves are personally affected.

However, the majority of Americans *do* have empathy and the notions of "sending someone back" to be imprisoned, tortured for years or killed just because they had the audacity to exercise freedom of speech or to have children gang raped and then hacked apart by machete because they are the wrong ethnic group is unacceptable to them and they feel America is large enough and wealthy enough to absorb these people into their nation.

My nation of Canada felt that way when we started letting in Syrian refugees in 2015 and in the last decade over 100,000 have settled in Canada and begun contributing to the nation.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2...

The fake-dems letting in all of these people with refugee papers is just the other side of the coin

The challenge is this: If someone presents themselves at a nation's border and declares themselves a refugee from persecution that nation has two options -

1) Let them in, evaluate their situation and then based on that allow them to stay or tell them they have to go back - Which may lead thousands and thousands of economic migrants to declare themselves as "refugees" leading to years-long waits for a review.

2) Say "I don't care what's going to happen to you, go away" - Which may lead to legitimate refugees and their families being tortured and killed.

There is no easy solution and to simply write "fake-dems letting in all of these people with refugee papers" is grossly simplistic to the point of it being childish.

I try to use the library for DVDs, but I'm consistently disappointed in the condition of the discs. They're often dirty or deeply scratched in elventeen places. It's nearly impossible to watch a library DVD without it glitching.

Clearly, people aren't treating the discs with care. Humans suck.

It's true that the VHS tapes at the library were never rewound and were worn out due to the long pausing on the scene where Phoebe Cates undoes her bikini top, but their analog nature meant they never glitched out the entire movie.

Except nobody thought getting inked was dangerous.

It's a bit of a stretch to say that "nobody" thought that.

I've personally always thought "How can it possibly be safe to inject organic and inorganic pigments into the dermis?"

So do you want your robocars to merely be better than the shitty human drivers that are creating most of the accidents?

No, we want them to be dramatically safer than most human drivers on the road.

Which is already the case.

For example, if 50 dogs per week are hit by cars in San Francisco we want to reduce that number by 98%.

in the old it's not physics or chemistry that will doom humanity but economics, aptly called the dismal science

Here in Canada we were able to stay on track with our targets until our neighbour and former friend the USA threw us under the bus while at the same time shooting themselves in the foot.

I'm not sure if you can call the actions of the American government "economics." I certainly don't.

It's really not all that hard. You know how in some small streams and fountains, bumps can form in the water? They're not really "there" because they are really caused by the underlying water streams colliding, rubbing, moving at different velocities; every time you interact with them, the water is completely different. And yet, in a certain sense they are there, because if you skipped a stone across the stream, and it hit one of these structures, it would bounce off. And would do so no matter how many times you did it. Physicists call these "quasi-particles".

These Hopfion's are quasiparticles. Except instead of being made of moving water, they're (typically) made of crystals made of Iron, Iridium, Platinum (just as one example) that have been excited by lasers. And like "real" particles, they can interact with each other (often in unique ways), making them able to do computation and store information.

However, despite the hype, doubt they'd be useful for any kind of long term storage. Typically systems depend on being energized by lasers constantly. Like bumps in the water when the stream dries up, they lose all their information when the lasers are turned off.

favorite tool when crap like this happens - credit card charge back

That *might* work if you bought your bike in the last four months, but after 120 days chargebacks typically can't be filed.

I would guess that option is off-the-table for most people.

But the neat thing is that there are apparently so many business phones and car entertainment systems out there that there are about one third more subscribers than there are people over age 10 in the United States

There are literally billions of Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices in the USA. Are all of them on them on public mobile data networks? No. But millions and millions of them are - Everything from street lights to parking meters to vehicle telemetry. Geotab alone tracks millions of vehicles and they're one vendor of several.

what kind of behavior would demonstrate that LLMs did have understanding?

An LLM would need to act like an understander -- the essence of the Turing Test. Exactly what that means is a complex question. And it's a necessary but not sufficient condition. But we can easily provide counterexamples where the LLM is clearly not an understander. Like this from the paper:

When prompted with the CoT prefix, the modern LLM Gemini responded: âoeThe United States was established in 1776. 1776 is divisible by 4, but itâ(TM)s not a century year, so itâ(TM)s a leap year. Therefore, the day the US was established was in a normal year.â This response exemplifies a concerning pattern: the model correctly recites the leap year rule and articulates intermediate reasoning steps, yet produces a logically inconsistent conclusion (i.e., asserting 1776 is both a leap year and a normal year).

Yet deaths as a result of climate/weather events are the lowest they've been in recorded history

True, but this doesn't mean the planet isn't warming. The reduction in deaths is pretty easily explained -

Improved Early Warning Systems: Better forecasting and communication of impending weather hazards compared to even 25 years ago have allowed for better evacuations and more preparedness, saving lives.

Enhanced Disaster Management: More effective response mechanisms, infrastructure improvements, and coordinated relief efforts have reduced deaths. Of course, the Republican's gutting of FEMA that is underway may turn this one around.

Technological Advancements: Better housing & infrastructure, and access to data and messaging have reduced deaths.

But despite all that, economic losses have increased dramatically.

This is not meaningful without citations

Correct. I didn't paste all the links, but the response cited its nearly 20 sources used to create the response.

If you want to paste the question into Grok yourself you can review them -

https://x.com/i/grok

aggressively label anything contrary to DNC planks disinformation and censor anyone asking quest

I was curious, so I asked the "non-woke" AI LLM (MAGA Elon Musk's Grok) "Did the Democrats used CISA to censor Republicans?"

Here's what it said -

There is no definitive evidence that Democrats used the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to systematically censor Republicans. Claims of this nature primarily stem from Republican allegations, particularly following the 2020 election, asserting that CISA's efforts to combat election misinformation disproportionately targeted conservative voices. These allegations are largely based on CISA's coordination with social media platforms to flag potential disinformation, which some Republicans argue suppressed their speech. For instance, a 2023 House Judiciary Committee report, led by Rep. Jim Jordan, labeled CISA as a central player in alleged federal censorship efforts, pointing to its role in sharing information with tech companies about election-related content.

However, CISA and its defenders, including former officials like Brandon Wales, have consistently denied these claims, stating that the agency's disinformation work was minimal (less than 1% of its budget) and focused on foreign threats, not domestic political speech. CISA's mission includes protecting critical infrastructure and elections from cyber threats, and its collaboration with platforms was intended to counter foreign interference, not to censor Americans. Democrats, such as Rep. Bennie Thompson, have argued that CISA's work is vital for national security and should not be politicized.

Posts on X and some conservative sources, like the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, amplify these accusations, suggesting CISA overstepped its mandate by engaging with social media companies. Yet, these claims lack concrete evidence of direct censorship orders from Democrats targeting Republicans specifically. A 2024 Supreme Court ruling clarified that federal agencies' interactions with tech companies did not violate free speech, as they did not coerce content removal.

On the other side, CISA's actions, such as issuing advisories about foreign disinformation or coordinating with election officials, have been praised by some Republicans and Democrats for strengthening election security. The partisan divide appears to hinge on differing interpretations of CISA's role in monitoring online content, with no conclusive proof of targeted censorship against Republicans. Always approach such claims critically, as they often reflect broader political narratives rather than verified facts.