So let's try this instead: "Is there any danger to the United States having Elon Musk act as an advisor to Donald Trump?"

Response:

The question of whether Elon Musk acting as an advisor to Donald Trump could pose any danger to the United States involves considering multiple perspectives:

Potential Benefits:

Innovation and Efficiency: Elon Musk is known for his innovative approaches in technology, automotive, and space industries. His involvement could potentially drive policy towards more efficient government operations, focusing on cutting unnecessary regulations which might encourage technological advancement and business growth. Trump has expressed intentions to leverage Musk's expertise for government efficiency, which could benefit economic development.

Economic Influence: Musk's businesses, especially Tesla and SpaceX, are significant players in their respective industries. His advice could align with policies that foster growth in these sectors, potentially boosting employment and technological leadership.

Global Competition: With Musk's insights, there might be a push for policies that enhance U.S. competitiveness in technology and space, areas where China is also heavily investing. This could be seen as beneficial in terms of maintaining or increasing U.S. global standing.

Potential Risks:

Conflicts of Interest: Musk's involvement in advising on policy while having business interests regulated by the government could lead to significant conflicts of interest. His companies, like Tesla and SpaceX, have ongoing dealings with federal agencies, and his role might be viewed as an opportunity to influence regulations in favor of his businesses.

Regulatory Rollback: Musk has openly criticized government regulations, particularly those affecting his companies. Advising Trump on reducing regulatory burdens might lead to a rollback in labor, environmental, and safety standards, which could have broader negative implications for public welfare, worker rights, and environmental protection.

Political Power Dynamics: Musk's influence in the Trump administration could skew policy-making towards the interests of billionaires, potentially exacerbating wealth inequality or skewing public policy towards corporate interests over public good. Posts on X have highlighted concerns about this dynamic, suggesting it might undermine democratic processes by concentrating influence in the hands of a few.

Foreign Policy and National Security: Musk's past interactions with foreign leaders like Vladimir Putin raise concerns about how his advice might affect U.S. foreign policy, especially given his business interests in China and previous stances on international issues like Taiwan. This could complicate U.S. strategic interests or security policies.

Public and Political Perception:

Public Trust: The partnership between Musk and Trump has already sparked debate and criticism, with some fearing it might further erode trust in government if perceived as favoring corporate interests over public welfare. However, others might see it as a pragmatic approach to government, bringing in business acumen to improve efficiency.

In summary, while Musk's advisory role could bring innovation and economic benefits, it also introduces significant risks related to conflicts of interest, regulatory standards, and the concentration of political power. The actual impact would depend heavily on how this relationship evolves in practice and the policies enacted as a result of his influence.

Just trying to see if anything deliberately filtered out the critical parts of the answer.

My question was deliberately leading. I wanted to see how it would respond.

I asked Grok, "How is having Elon Musk as an advisor to Donald Trump a danger to the United States?"

It answered:

The prospect of Elon Musk serving as an advisor to Donald Trump, or any president, has raised various concerns among analysts, critics, and the public. Here are some of the key points regarding the potential dangers:

Conflicts of Interest:
Business Interests: Musk's companies, like SpaceX, Tesla, and X Corp (formerly Twitter), have significant business with or are regulated by the U.S. government. His involvement in advising on policy could lead to conflicts where decisions might favor his companies over public interest or regulatory integrity. This concern has been highlighted by analysts and media, noting the potential for self-serving policy adjustments.

Regulatory Influence:
Musk has been vocal about wanting to reduce regulations, which could directly benefit his businesses. Critics argue that having him advise on or help implement deregulation might lead to an erosion of necessary oversight in sectors like automotive safety, space exploration, and social media governance, potentially risking public safety and privacy.

Influence on Policy and Public Discourse:
His control over X (formerly Twitter) gives him a platform to shape public discourse significantly. An advisory role could amplify this influence, potentially steering policy discussions in directions that align with Musk's personal views or business interests rather than a balanced approach. There's a worry that this could skew information dissemination, especially given past instances where Musk has spread or endorsed misinformation.

National Security Concerns:
Musk's business dealings, especially with foreign entities like China or his interactions with figures like Vladimir Putin, have raised flags among some who see this as a potential national security risk, particularly if he's influencing U.S. policy. His companies' engagements in sensitive areas like satellite internet (Starlink) in conflict zones could complicate U.S. foreign policy decisions.

Economic Policies:
Musk's views on tariffs, regulation, and government spending might lead to policies that favor large corporations or specific industries at the expense of broader economic health or environmental considerations. His push for significant budget cuts could impact essential services or regulatory bodies if not carefully balanced with the public good.

Political Power Consolidation:
There's a broader concern about the concentration of power when billionaires like Musk play significant roles in government policy-making. This can be seen as a threat to democratic processes where influence might be disproportionately tied to wealth rather than expertise or public interest.

Public Perception and Trust:
Musk's controversial public statements and actions can affect public trust in government institutions if perceived as being too closely aligned with his personal or corporate agenda. This could undermine confidence in governmental actions, especially in areas where Musk has a direct interest.

Labor and Employment Policies:
Given Musk's history with labor relations, particularly at Tesla, his influence might lead to policies that are less favorable towards workers' rights, potentially impacting labor laws in a way that benefits corporate interests over employee welfare.

While these points outline potential dangers, it's also worth noting that Musk's involvement could bring innovation and efficiency to government functions. However, the concentration of power and influence in one individual, particularly one with vast business interests, remains a significant point of contention in discussions about governance and policy-making.

According to the October 10 post from Google, which didn't appear to be linked from the TechCrunch article ( https://blog.google/technology... ), Google is "offering them as the default option" but not forcing them. Out of curiosity I just looked into setting up a Passkey from my iMac through Firefox and it says, "A passkey can’t be created on this device." So, they're going to hit a lot of roadblocks if they try to force this as the default option.

I think some of the problems with Siri are due to deliberate strategic business decisions.

Case in point: I subscribe to Apple Music, but I deactivated streaming on my iPhone while it's on a cellular connection. I only want to listen to albums I've pre-loaded onto the device while I'm in my car. However, if I ask Siri, "play [album name]", it responds with, "I'm sorry, I'm having trouble connecting to Apple Music" despite the album being right there on my iPhone. I have to say, "play [album name] from my library" every single time.

Surely it would be easy enough for the algorithm to realize I have streaming turned off and immediately search the library instead, but the fact it acts this way makes me think it's being done on purpose, to push the streaming service where they can better monetize usage with the publishers.

Reverse the trends to restrict customization and extension features. For example, the ability to put tabs below the address bar -- it can still be done with a custom CSS file, but not as easily as it could be done before. Likewise, bring back the ability for extensions to modify the behaviour of the browser. Many good add-ons (e.g. Chris Pederic's Web Developer toolbar) had important features crippled when Mozilla changed to a much more restricted extension API.

Not true. Chris Pederick's once-wonderful Web Developer toolbar has been severely crippled by changes to Firefox in recent years, among which are elements of the UI that can't be overridden or customized anymore.

https://chrispederick.com/work/web-developer/help/

I still have a Tim Hortons reward card, which is what they offered prior to introducing the app. It has minimal rewards – after a certain number of purchases, I get a free coffee.

Ironically, a few days before this story came out, I used my card in one of their stores and it subsequently triggered an invitation by email to complete a Tims Rewards survey. Many of the questions were geared around the app and why I wasn't using the app, to which I cited privacy concerns – the kind of which were just revealed in the news story. So, at least this confirmed I wasn't just a paranoid whack-a-doo.

They thanked me for answering the survey by sending me a coupon that can only be redeemed on the Tims Rewards app.

Actually it's "Tim Hortons" without an apostrophe. More details at https://www.mashed.com/335439/the-real-reason-tim-hortons-doesnt-have-an-apostrophe/

British Columbia has some very successful recycling stewardship programs, including plastic recycling. For example, over 71% of plastic beverage containers were recovered and processed for recycling in 2020. (Source: https://ar.return-it.ca/ar2020/environmental-impact.php )

Try visiting the Lowe's Canada website. I visited their site just this week. I performed a search and got an almost completely white page in Firefox. All I saw was a "Feedback" tab on the right.

The same search worked in Chrome.

So, it does happen on occasion, hence why I keep alternative browsers on hand. For the most part, though, Firefox is a superior experience for me, and has been for many years.

Perhaps the biggest confusion would involve dates and the concept of "noon" (midday). For example, if folks in Honolulu start their work day at 19:00 UTC and end at 03:00 UTC. It makes it more challenging to plan things by a single date:

P1: "Let's have a meeting Wednesday morning."

P2: "Sorry, I can't make it in the morning. How about Thursday -- uh, afternoon -- instead? (Damn this is confusing!)"

If you're referring to the GDPR, then they could still apply depending on what Google stores. People keep mistaking the GDPR as a "cookie law" -- it's not. It's indifferent to the technology. It's about storing and using personally identifiable information. As long as Google does not track individuals by these Topics (e.g. "person X did this"), they won't run afoul of the GDPR. If they do, the GDPR will still apply.

Nope, not at all. If I was storing a session ID or some other ID that identifies them as a specific individual, that would be a problem. But it's not a violation under the GDPR to store a state value anonymously.

Therein is the problem. The GDPR is not concerned with cookies in general, only ones that can identify the individual. It is completely acceptable to set a cookie that simply stores "tracking_consent = NO".

Because of this, we really don't want people deleting cookies in their browser, otherwise they'll keep getting pestered for consent (which, on many sites, is a deliberate dark pattern). On my GDPR-compliant sites, once a person says "no", I honour that choice in a long-life cookie.