I'd have fired her. This is institutionally damaging levels of incompetence, for (apparently!) "clicks".

> I keep waiting for Trumpistas to honestly respond to the scattershot nationalization of the economy under Trump.

You're confusing Trump supporters with Conservatives.

Trump is basically a 1980s Democrat, not a modern "Send All The Jobs To Mexico!" Republican.

Isn't that rather the point of calling them a "supply chain risk"?

If the Department of War calls itself the Department of War, who's going to tell them they can't?

We could just send everyone to Carousel at 30.

Or we could go back to the old days where we expected most kids to die early and stop demanding Safety At Any Cost.

> "Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not."

This clearly shows Matrix AI isn't very smart. Most mammals only 'develop a natural equilibrium' because predators kill most of them.

We typically have one or two voles in our back yard because the neighbourhood cats keep the population at that level. Every few months one or more voles disappear and then a few weeks later another one appears and finds a nice pre-dug hole in our flower bed to move into.

It's a supply chain risk for military use because they refuse to let their tech be used for some kinds of military-style stuff. It seems pretty clear that he's correct there.

That doesn't mean they should, but from the military's standpoint the company is clearly a risk for military used.

Isn't this the same guy who was held by police in France for refusing to censor his social media app?

The ultimate goal is presumably to eliminate all functionality from the "low spec gaming PC" and charge you by the hour to run the games on Microsoft's servers with the video data sent to you over the Internet.

Microsoft is already well into the rentier phase of big business decline where they can't produce anything new that people want but they can charge increasingly-high rent to people who are locked into their systems.

Ai will just shine the light on the class of workers who have make-work just that exist solely to push them to vote harder.

When we can let markets replace them, itâ(TM)ll be a tragedy for a few generations and then it will be forgotten.

I don't know, a bus or train all to myself seems more wasteful than the regular car.

It doesn't have to be perfect to still have an effect. Though yes, I'd argue that our current system is already good enough that for like 99% of the murders remaining, serious thought on the consequences did not occur. They thought they'd never be caught or even just didn't care in the heat of the moment.

Also, getting as specific as this crime isn't as necessary. If it deters somebody from murdering their fully adult spouse or even their drug dealer, good enough.

You’ve shifted my point into something I never argued.

Deterrence doesn’t require me personally to have almost committed murder. It’s a populationlevel effect observed across criminology: when the state reliably investigates and solves serious crimes, the expected cost of committing those crimes rises, and some fraction of wouldbe offenders change their behavior. That’s true even if neither you nor I were ever in that category.

You’re also treating “people who commit murder” as psychologically identical to “people who would never consider it,” which is exactly why personal anecdotes aren’t the right tool here. The question is whether solving murders—even old ones—reduces the incentive for planned, intentional killings. The evidence suggests it does.

So if you want to engage with what I actually said, the discussion is about deterrence, institutional legitimacy, and the social value of solving serious crimes—not whether I’ve ever personally been on the verge of stabbing someone.

"It doesn't need to be understandable or maintainable because if you want to change the code you just change the prompt and have Claude recreate it from scratch." - AI fanboys, probably.

I fully support deporting all the Normans from England and returning it to the Anglos.

But I note that you immediately resort to Whataboutism rather than replying to my specific comments.

The left love to talk about Muh Stolen Land and yet they support Danish colonizers whenever it's convenient for them.