The FCC gives exceptions to that on a case-by-case basis. They seem to have announced they wouldn't do it here, which favors the currently dominant party, which is why the FCC shouldn't be in charge of these decisions. The rule also hasn't been to the supremes. Kimmel won't want that to happen now for obvious reasons.

The progression from "bomb iran" to "we shouldn't get involved in foreign countries' business" to "but won't you think of the Iranians?" has been fascinating, almost as much as going from "better dead than red" to "better russian than democrat"

In this case it's making a strong argument (not a legal one, but an emotional one) for regulating it heavily or even banning it completely, because eventually even shitty models that you can run on your phone will have that kind of power.

Don't forget Paxton gave a lenient sentence to Adam Hoffman who raped a friend's kid for over three years.

What existing stuff is not fucked up? We need a software architecture that puts security first, whether that's microkernel-based or whatever else. And we need to rethink the way we handle speculative execution as well. We need substantive changes, not further rearrangement of deck chairs and a declaration of victory.

Shareholders want anything but to be held accountable for how they invest their money.

But they are the enablers of evil deeds. Fuck them.

No, there was no "empty space" around it. The space itself expanded in the cosmic inflation, per current theory.

Which I've always hated because it makes no sense. If space itself inflated, what did it inflate into? It's illogical, from any perspective, to say the universe was a speck of energy that suddenly expanded to create itself. If it expanded, it had to expand into something. You can't create yourself. If you say that, then all you've done is recreate, "In the beginning ..."

Why does everyone always leap straight to killing people, for which there are wholly separate versions of the laws based on differing circumstances, to try to describe situations where that is not the case?

Why does everyone who does this ignore that manslaughter is still a crime, so they are really proving the opposite of what they think they are proving?

That is not what is happening. What is happening is that someone has a new paper about whether it's true or not. It will probably change few minds.

Pump and dump. Sold all his stock in that venture to support his other ventures.

Yeah but they can't fix the robots.

And if the robots are using LLMs they might hallucinate a need to kill them. They could behave completely normally for a thousand days and then go batshit on day 1001

It could, but there would not only be no benefit to that, there would be an anti-benefit. The data could potentially be tampered with in flight. The whole point of cryptographic attestation on the camera is that it proves the data came from the device.

Yes, there is a need. We need to make it unprofitable. It's not enough to hold peons or even executives accountable, we must hold SHAREHOLDERS accountable and the only way to do that is by COSTING THEM MONEY.

So they accidentally pushed the button?

Every time I run into a southern strategy denialist I know I am about to see a bunch of bullshit. You should have put that at the end of your rant, then someone might have believed part of it. What a fucking amateur.