Land is one of the most important forms of capital. There is a finite supply of land.

Whatâ(TM)s interesting here is that as a professional musician, this guy is a public figure and the âoeactual maliceâ standard for defamation applies â" a standard that was designed when defamation could only be done by a human being.

This requires the defendant to make a defamatory statement either (1) knowing it is untrue or (2) with reckless disregard for the truth.

Neither condition applies to the LLM itself; it has no conception of truth, only linguistic probability. But the LLM isnâ(TM)t the defendant here. Itâ(TM)s the company offering it as a service. Here the company is not even aware of the defamatory statement being made. But it is fully aware of their modelâ(TM)s capacity to hallucinate defamatory âoefactsâ.

I think that because the tort is based in the common law concept of a duty of care, we may well see the company held liable in some way for this kind of thing. But itâ(TM)s new law; it could go the other way.

The laborious, linear interface is of course another limitation of all kinds of tapes -- digital or analog. But getting rid of this also changes human behavior. People don't listen as much to long form collections; they don't even necesssarily listen to entire songs.

A mix tape is essentially a long format program manually and personally curated for you by another human being, unmediated and indeed untracked by any third corporate party. Losing the mix tape was a real cultural loss. Sure they didn't sound great, but they didn't have to.

I suppose every technological advance is potentially double edged. When people get books and literacy, verbal storytelling declines. That doesn't make books bad. the technical limitations of verbal stories -- say limited repeatbility -- are real limitations, but that doesn't mean something wasn't lost.

his followers often hurt and do worse things, when sent in a direction from their leader.

d's dont do that, but r's do. that's the whole reason why congress is frozen solid. they all want to LIVE and not have to pay 10x for security when the leader says 'this person should be taught a lesson'. in so many words.

its not that they have or dont have backbone; but when thugs are sent to kill you, the notion of free speech is meaningless.

this is the key. his followers are killers. his ice gang are losers who cant get any other job and just love to bash heads.

its ALL about violence. I understand them being afraid.

but its their fucking fault for empowering him in the first place!

ob disc: I used to work for nio usa.

batt swap is a great idea and its been done well. tesla tried it for a very short while and gave up. too bad.

one use case not always mentioned: you run out of juice and you are too far from a charging station or maybe you are in a hurry or just dont mind paying the convenience fee for a local drive-up swap. yes, they can do that. you can be on your way with a 'full tank' in very short order. no idea how common it is; usually you drive to one of the swap garages and it guides you in, you stay in your car the whole time, robots lower the old batt and raise up the new one.

the kinks are worked out.

dont bash on this cause its china. it IS and will continue to be a good idea.

china pulled it off since it was NOT adverse to ev's. in fact, they see ev's as their future, so the gov was eager to install all the infra they could.

during the very early T days, we still, as a country (usa) were going full speed ahead. car companies were doing well and we, the workers, did well.

then, the presidency changed and all went to hell after that. he picked his gas buddies over ev tech and the country is now suffering for it.

I'm 99% batt swap will never hit consumer cars in the US. monied interests dont want it. they know its their demise. their argument of '30 minute fillups' goes away with this. and you buy the car sans batt and so you always have a rental batt. you get used to it. upside: you never have a long-term battery that gets bad and bad. all swap batts are maintained so that no one gets a truly bad batt.

when you read the comments, you can see who has an open mind and who is a paid shill for a certain viewpoint.

I do not think the OP was disputing that. It seems like they were just warning other readers that the Meta servers have unreasonable or undesirable rules.

Code.org is just an industry advocacy group and lobbyist. Their actions demonstrate that their mission is to make money for tech companies, so they should have their nonprofit status revoked. They're basically just an industry marketing effort.

What you are suggesting is a law. The executive branch does not have that power.

It goes to show why you Trump idiots never see anything wrong with what he does. You do not understand basic civics.

PBS is primarily (85%) privately funded. It will continue to produce shows like Masterpiece, Nova, Frontline, and Sesame Street and people in places like Boston or Philadelphia will continue to benefit from them.

What public funding does is give viewers in poorer, more rural areas access to the same information that wealthy cities enjoy. It pays for access for people who don't have it.

By opting out, Arkansas public broadcasting saves 2.5 million dollars in dues, sure. But it loses access to about $300 million dollars in privately funded programming annually.

Seriously, the idea that we know all the practically important physics there is is the kind of thing only somebody who's never done science or engineering would believe.

Industrial R&D is important, but it is in a distrant third place with respect to importance to US scientific leadership after (1) Universities operating with federal grants and (2) Federal research institutions.

It's hard to convince politicians with a zero sum mentality that the kind of public research that benefits humanity also benefits US competitiveness. The mindset shows in launching a new citizenship program for anyone who pays a million bucks while at the same time discouraging foreign graduate students from attending universtiy in the US or even continuing their university careers here. On average each talented graduate student admitted to the US to attend and elite university does way more than someone who could just buy their way in.

Republicans equate being pro-market with being pro-big-business-agenda. The assumption is that anything that is good for big business is good for the market and therefore good for consumers.

So in the Republican framing, anti-trust, since is interferes with what big business wants to do, is *necessarily* anti-market and bad for consumers, which if you accept their axioms would have to be true, even though what big business wants to do is use its economic scale and political clout to consolidate, evade competition, and lock in consumers.

That isn't economics. It's religion. And when religious dogmas are challenge, you call the people challenging them the devil -- or in current political lingo, "terrorists". A "terrorist" in that sense doesn't have to commit any actual act of terrorism. He just has to be a heathen.

no problem.

I'm actually responding to the AC above you. He is arguing that the attack wouldn't make any sense for either country to make, based on *national* interest. I'm pointing out that's not the only framework in which *regimes* make decisions.

Just put it in context: Today Russia struck the Pechenihy Reservoir dam in Kharkiv.
Russia launched the war because they thought it would be a quick and easy win, a step towards reestablishing a Russian empire and sphere of influence, because Putin thinks in 19th century terms. Russia is continuing the war, not because it's good for Russia. I'd argue that winning and then having to rebuild and pacify Ukraine would be a catastrophe. Russia is continuing the war because *losing* the war would be catastrophic for the *regime*. It's not that they want to win a smoldering ruin, it's that winning a smoldering ruin is more favorable to them and losing an intact country.