Yep, indeed.

Universal healthcare is also a significant reason why the US loses out to every other rich country in the world in objective metrics of healthcare.

(e.g., cost, longevity, infant mortality, maternal mortality, etc.)

That's in part because a lot of products sold via third-party sellers on Amazon are fulfilled by Walmart or Target by retail arbitrageurs.

Solid reasoning right there. ;-)

We'd like that, but if the creators here wanted it, they'd be using tech different than LLMs.

Imagine a filter so bad that "please die" gets past it.

"You do realize he won the popular vote too, right?"

Did he? Probably, but not quite convinced that that is certain yet.

There's still a very large number of votes yet to be counted to ascertain that, roughly five million in the state of California alone. (ref https://electionresults.sos.ca...)

And as the later counted votes, typically mail-in, typically Dem leaning, have continued to be counting Trump's popular vote count margin has dropped from about 12 million to what's now a bit over 3 million.

(I meant cache, not core, obviously.)

This is so different in different problem domains that I don't think the generalization is either useful nor valid.

But if you *can* overlap well, you absolutely should.

(In others, you just have way more data that needs operating on than RAM or core, and if the CPU can keep up, there's not much you can do to make the problem better.)

I seem to recall a stat from my work in digital television (before internet video was so common) that the average length of a hotel porn movie rental -- that is, how long someone actually watched it -- was nine minutes.

In terms of US law and strictly commercial speech, you'd be right (the Commerce Clause), but /. culture tends to focus on a broader philosophical sense of the term, rather than a particular national legal view.

As an aside, the study kicking off the parent article likely includes non-commercial unsolicited text messages--generally political begs, which would be more strongly protected by US law. Not my real point, though.

In the end, I am not in the broad ethical sense a "free speech fundamentalist", and I'm in fact skeptical of any sort of fundamentalism. The point of my previous comment is a backhanded shot at those who claim to be so, but who are not when it is slightly inconvenient to them. I believe strongly that free speech is an important value, but not one which does not have it's limits -- legitimate death threats, libel/slander, and other historical exceptions made in, say, US law mostly (not entirely, I feel) exist for good cause.

... and not one of them has defended spam as free speech.

Curious.

"Worse, surviving people could start to want a single payer system like the rest of the developed world."

Quibble: Quite a lot of the developed world has universal but not single-payer systems.

While it pushes against my intuition, the data looks as if the primary win is "truly universal", rather than "single-payer".

Take a look at cost, longevity, under-5-mortality across what you consider developed countries and see if you get the same result. (If not, that's cool, but take a look.)

I thought I was on Slashdot, not OANN.

You're joking, right?