If the AI data has access to current and past news, then it could be giving Trump's business methods a high ranking. One of Trump's business moves was to have his attorneys claim 'an act of God' under a contract to avoid paying a subcontractor. Trump, as President, has invoked national security risks in support for everything from deportations without due process and as justification for tariffs, etc. He has even declared peaceful Jewish protesters at Columbia to be violent anti-Semites. An AI might follow Trump's general reasoning pattern and start invoking nuclear options for missed deliveries and payments and might call the FBI to investigate. Several posts on this thread have picked up on the Trump angle as a possible influence on the AI LLM's. The researchers should add a value tag of "known idiot" to all things Trump to save their models from poor reasoning.

Under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), whenever an entity or person is a public figure and sues for being defamed, they must not only prove that the statements about them were false and caused harm to their reputation (defamatory statements), but as a public figure they must also prove that the false statements were made with "actual malice." The Court wanted to protect the First Amendment right of anyone to discuss matters of wide public importance without fear of being found guilty of libel or slander for mistakenly making a false statement.

In televised legislative hearing in the Arizona legislature, several irregularities involving the Dominion voting machines were identified, such as a Dominion voting machine being reprogrammed during the election, and both Dominion and the Democratic officials refusing to reveal information.

As such, under New York Times v. Sullivan, Fox News could have easily defeated Dominion's libel suit, even if Fox New's suppositions about the Dominion voting machines could have been proven false. I could have won the case on behalf of Fox News if it were legal for me to represent them. I'm a maximum-security ex-con with over 15 years experience litigating for myself (see, e.g., Pratt v. Sumner, 807 F.2d 817 (9th Cir., 1987)), and after I was released I earned an AAS-Legal Assistant degree, with honors, through an American Bar Association approved course of study. I believe that there was no compelling legal reason for Fox News to settle the case and pay Dominion millions of dollars.

I'm inclined to suspect that Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News at the time, deliberately gutted his perfectly legitimate defense under New York Times v. Sullivan and that he paid millions of dollars in a settlement to help create fear in others about 'defaming' Dominion. It is perhaps the case that Dominion served the interests of powerful political groups acting in concert to subvert American democracy. In fact, the settlement money from Fox News may have even been provided by other persons or entities and then laundered by Fox News, or the settlement monies may have been reimbursed, for it seems unlikely that Fox News would pay millions of dollars in an unnecessary settlement when Fox News otherwise had a perfectly good legal defense.

Something doesn't add up, and I don't actually know what does add up, but the settlement invites suspicions.

"Disinformation" researchers from the Atlantic Council think tank have just expanded my understanding of how those with Zionist butt-hurt feelings about the news are taking action to censor alternative press outlets. Throughout the Western world, we are seeing governments take action against news organizations that are allegedly spreading "disinformation" and "misinformation." Those catch-phrases may be an identifying link between governmental and private persons and entities that are conspiring to make Zionist butt-hurt feelings more important than eveyone else's rights.

I respect anyone's right to have a low opinion of any news outlet, but I do not respect anyone setting themself up as the arbiter of what is "disinformation" and "misinformation" and then barring me from visiting and reading my favorite news sites.

All the US officials involved in the order to bar RT.com and Sputnikglobe.com are Jewish and presumably Zionist (the effect of their efforts will be to protect Israel from honest news and criticism). The US officials are Antony Blinken, et al., of the US State Department; Janet Yellen of the US Treasury Department; and, Merrick Gardner of the US Department of Justice and as the US Attorney General. I expect that the world will find more Zionists pulling the strings in similar censorship efforts throughout the Western world, and they will be using the catch-phrases of "disinformation" and "misinformation."

"Russian meddling" was created by Hillary Clinton. She paid for the false "Steele dossier", and every accusation against Russia and every allegation against Trump revolved around that hoax. We have recently seen reincarnations of such allegations, but they really shouldn't bother us much until Ivan from the FSB shows up at our door and offers us cash. We shouldn't trust the Microsoft Threat Assessment Center to warn us about disinformation from anywhere since none of us are getting any such disinformation. Our own candidates and government officials are supplying plenty enough of that. Have you gotten any disinformation from foreign sources? Thought not. Microsoft founder Bill Gates recently gave Kamala 50 million dollars, and that's what I think this story is about: beating a dead horse and trying to pump it up with air, again!

The effort to limit China's technological advancement is only one piece of a larger effort to ostracize both Russia and China economically. The US dollar is massively over-indebted, but the better-managed currencies and economies of both Russia and China are relatively debt-free. Eventually, there are going to be significant changes in world-wide capital flows investing in Russian and Chinese ventures, as well as world-wide changes in currency valuations.

Western banking interests (at the level of the Rothschilds) is going to suffer immensely as these inevitable world-wide financial changes come to be. So, the Zionist US State Department (discussion below) supported Neo-Nazis in their overthrow of the legitimately elected democratic government in Ukraine in 2014, and the US chose the new leaders and provided weapons, munitions and funds to support the coup government's attacks for eight years against ethnic Russian Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine who refused to be ruled over by the coup government. Russia immediately secured its military base in Crimea and reintegrated Crimea into Russia by a democratic vote.

Western sanctions soon followed. Not war, but only economic sanctions, and that was the whole point of the US State Department creating the Russia-Ukraine conflict so that the West would have cause to rally the West to isolate Russia economically. More sanctions have followed after Russian intervened eight years later on behalf of the ethnic Russians being attacked in Ukraine.

Likewise, the pending conflict between China and Taiwan is being stoked by the US to create cause to isolate China economically.

The US effort to create a bubble around the West where the debts of the US dollar would just be business as usual without any comparisons to the ruble or yuan failed when Saudi Arabia refused to increase energy supplies and lower prices to make up for the banned supplies from Russia.

Nonetheless, the show must go on, and we see continued efforts to ostracize both Russia and China economically, and chips are just one sector of that effort. The only other alternative is WW III so that the West can write off its debts.

All the senior staff at the US State Department are said to be either Jewish or have Jewish spouses (per a calmly-worded Internet post). My guess is that these anomalous personnel promotions (and firings) started happening after Henry Kissinger became the US Secretary of State. In other words, all the senior staff at the US State Department are double-agents for Israel and, by extension, for Jewish banking interests. As further evidence, A large number of mid-level and lower-level staff at the US State Department have signed a letter complaining that the senior staff are all pro-Israel and that they are not reporting war crimes being committed by Israel.

I suspect that Israel and Jewish banking interests are trying to use the US State Department to lead the US into starting WW III by attacking Iran; and, the senior staff at the US State Department don't seem to know how to negotiate a ceasefire. Russia has a base in Iran, so do the math.

The war against Chinese chip-making ability is only a small part of a much larger potential war.

Since the SWIFT system already does bank-to-bank clearances, this effort by the IMF is an admission that SWIFT is in trouble because the Russian and Chinese clearance systems are taking hold in the world. No country wants to do business with countries that freezes their bank funds at will for political reasons. This effort by the IMF to create a system with a blank slate will fail because everyone knows that the IMF would support western sanctions and seizures of property and funds. The Russian and Chinese clearance systems are trusted because both countries continue to do business with those who are opposed to them, giving all countries hope that they could do business through those clearance systems without the risk of having their funds seized for political reasons. Watch! The IMF system will become a toy system used by the West alongside SWIFT, but it will go no further. The West's dominance over world financial transactions is waning and will all but die. We did it to ourselves, and we can only reverse its decline by changing our political attitudes towards countries that disagree with us and towards high-value sectors of other countries economies that outperform us. In other words, we need to get back to work instead of working at being thugs.

I fell in love with pdfdrive.com because it allowed me to search for and download texts that sometimes are not even being sold anymore. Further, even when I have the actual book, I find that it is easier to both read and keep my bookmark automatically when reading a .pdf on my computer (I used to prefer books because it is easier to see where you are at in the book and jump around, but trying to read a book and keep it open can be a pain). So, when I saw this news article that terabytes of .pdf documents were available for free, I thought that I would test it by searching for a .pdf copy of any book. Maybe someone knows something that I don't, but I couldn't get S3 browser to find a particular book (a book that I already own). PDFdrive.com is being attacked in some way and it has not worked for me in over a week (though there is a workaround through a site with a different domain ending). For someone with both limited funds, access to materials, or even a lack of knowledge about what's available regarding any given subject, pdfdrive.com has been a Godsend, and it would have been nice if the free .pdf database described in the article could have been used the same way.

We have great organizations like Code Pink in the U.S. that send veteran protestors and leaders like Ms. Madea Benjamin to harrass, heckle and humiliate officials like Antony Blinken at public hearings. This sort of protest is absolutely legal, though not tolerated. Ms. Madea Benjamin and others are hauled out of such public hearings like rail cars being pulled by choo choos, or more accurately, by the po po. In comparison, we have Chinese paid thugs verbally harassing and verbally threatening (what? no details?) political dissidents. For expressing political views towards specific individuals, these Chinese individuals are being called criminals and are being charged as such. The exact same behavior by U.S. citizens is constitutionally-protected political protest and free speech. The only two Chinese suspects in the U.S. have been accused of setting up a Chinese police station in New York. One thing that a police station has are one or more holding cells that have been used to detain one or more suspects from time to time. How much do you want to bet that the secret police station has some suspicious looking broom and mop closets?

I hate being censored in any fashion, and companies like OpenWeb, which provide moderator services for news-site posting boards, are extremely aggressive and will censor and remove posts for just mentioning the initials "BDS" (the Palestinian Boycott, Divest and Sanctions movement). Slashdot has great news articles, and I am sometimes motivated to comment, but I have had posts removed, and--as you now say--"modded." I think that the U.K. in general takes a more active role in censorship, and Slashdot is often a team player and has one or more moderators who seem to work as government watchdogs or score editors. That's fine, everyone needs a hustle, and any harder job is just that, a harder job. And, honestly, its hard to find any site that is not being blocked and censored these days, whether in the E.U. or the U.S. They didn't delete my post, and that's a plus, and I'll take the win.

Julian Assange had a policy of not revealing his sources, but he intimated that the source of the leaked DNC emails was a DNC staffer named Seth Rich, a.k.a., "Panda," whom Assange suspects may have been murdered for his role in leaking those emails. The allegation that Russia hacked the DNC server is part of the concocted tapestry of allegations that included accusing Trump of collusion with Russia. We now know that the Steele dossier regarding Trump was a deliberate fabrication paid for by Hillary Clinton. I am not sure why people are regurgitating these allegations that "Russia did it," but at this point it is nothing more than an insult to everyone's intelligence.

I just read the original filing, and the constitutional objections to the FTC could be applied to virtually any administrative agency that has significant judicial-style power without a normal judge being involved, any agency that has an enforcement mission instead of just waiting for claims as a neutral arbiter, and any agency with powers that encompass the powers of all three branches of government instead of having those powers separated. If these arguments were new, we might have some real issues here, but that horse left the barn a very long time ago, and the courts have since held that administrations created by our legislature and approved by our President are acting within their defined scope as approved by the three constitutional branches of our government. The attorney who filed this was in danger of being sanctioned unless he could show a good-faith argument for a change in the existing law. The good news is that if you don't like America, you can buy it, and Microsoft can start funding campaigns right now.

Most of the time, I start a rough draft of my online posts and clean them up before posting by using a simple offline webpage that I wrote that has a text box, a spell checker and spelling correction, and a word counter. If I want to, I even have a music recording that I can click on, but I quit using it because the sound quality is not as good as when I use VLC. In sum, I prefer my simple solution because it is simple and gets the job done. I originally created it to keep track of the word count because I was posting to a site that had a 390 word limit.

This story of Congress silently refusing to act on confirming the appointment of an FCC chairperson reminds me of one of my own experiences.
When I was a litigious prisoner in the U.S. State of Nevada, I slowly learned the hard way that a successful appeal in a prisoner's civil-rights lawsuit is only successful if the lower court was honest but mistaken. If you have to go back to a corrupt court, you have won nothing.
In my one published case, Pratt v. Sumner, 807 F.2d 817 (9th Cir. 1987), I had sued when prison officials withheld a book sent to me by a professor of law, but the local federal court dismissed my lawsuit as "frivolous." The appeals court held otherwise and remanded my case back to the lower court. The lower court, however, silently refused to order the U.S. Marshal to serve process on the State defendants. I filed motions, wrote letters, etc., but nothing ensued.
So, I went back to the appeals court and invoked the court's ancillary jurisdiction and asked for a writ of mandate to direct the lower court to order the U.S. Marshal to serve the lawsuit (service by the U.S. Marshal is a non-discretionary procedure after a plaintiff has been granted "in forma pauperis" status, as I had).
The appeals court declined to do so. I was in limbo for several more weeks or even months.
After many years of litigating and several successful appeals, I finally realized that I was dealing with a piece of work, corrupt lower court and that no successful appeal could tame it, so I dismissed all of my pending legal actions and quit litigating for myself in Nevada. This game of silent inaction in Congress regarding the appointment of an FCC chairman smells about the same.
  Unfortunately, the game players have both fans and foes, and it is unlikely that anyone will be held accountable by the voters. It's the reality of what our judicial and governmental systems have become.

When I read the article, I thought "Why?" Why would I invest the time and effort to learn and run Solaris on any machine without some use-case for Solaris? I have Ubuntu on my computer, and the use-case is free software and the opportunity to learn how to use an operating system that is used by businesses throughout the world. Moreover, I can't tell you how deeply it angered me to have to log-in with Microsoft before I could use my computer. When my screen finally went blank and stayed blank after a Windows update, I completely abandoned Windows, and I have been on Ubuntu since version 18.04. Solaris? I read all the comments here, and no one has presented any use-case for Solaris. No one.

Seeing RT videos hosted on Rumble was a pleasant surprise, but I expect the other shoe to drop where Rumble will be barred from hosting RT videos because of the sanctions. I cannot personally afford the time and cost of litigating against any sanctions and covert actions by the government against RT, but there is a First Amendment claim that is possible. We not only have the First Amendment right to express our opinions without undue governmental interference, but we also have the right to receive information without undue governmental interference. Governmental burdening of free speech based on its content is subject to the highest scrutiny (in an honest court).

The problem is that most of the censorship against RT is being carried out by private entities. For example, DIRECTV cut off RT America before RT's contract expired. There is no constitutional claim against a private entity for censorship unless it can be shown that the private entity took directions from or conspired with government officials. The problem there, of course, is proving the nexus between the government and the private entity, which would be hard to do.

Nonetheless, a tort action for breach of contract could be brought by customers of DIRECTV who subscribed (even if only in part) because RT America was available.

I hope that constitutional-law and tort-law attorneys are already looking into bringing such claims. I have an AAS-Legal Assistant degree, with honors, through an ABA-approved course of study at Pima Community College in Tucson, Arizona. I also have over 15 years of pro se litigation experience in prisoners' constitutional law claims and some criminal-law experience. See, e.g., Pratt vs. Sumner, 807 F.2d 817 (9th Cir. 1987). What I don't have, however, are the time and financial resources to spend all day researching law, preparing pleadings and motions, and paying court fees (I had all the time in the world as a prisoner). Although attorneys may have the means, they do not necessarily have the time, especially when litigating at their own expense.