I think those may be ways you can lose permanent resident status, but not reasons to be denied entry. But some of this is a question of practice. A border agent "denying entry" on the basis of #2 is not necessarily denying entry to a permanent resident - they are making a judgement that the person before them no longer has status because that is a condition. Even for that there is a due process issue in that if the person claims that that is a record error they should be admitted and then followed up. In a correctly functioning system, it is not the border agent's job to litigate the green card status itself, only to correctly map the person to their status and then admit or refer for other processing accordingly. Obviously the current administration is attempting to do illegal things that sound kindof like the rules but aren't really.

I think what you say is not as strong as you think it is. It only applies to limited things like due process, not necessarily all constitutional rights such as those restricting search and seizure. There is something called the "entry fiction" where people who have entered can be treated as if they are requesting entry and therefore only have the rights they would have at the border. See this podcast episode. Rights they have do include a few things like habeas corpus and due process, but, as I understand it, not things like freedom from search or right to silence or freedom from indefinite detention. And, as others point out, currently federal law enforcement is even ignoring many of those rules or massively abusing them.

Now I think the entry fiction is an incorrect interpretation of the U.S. constitution and should not exist, but my understanding is that it is the current functioning precedent of law in the U.S. Among other things this is the hole through which the current administration is trying to create its police state - if they claim someone entered the country without authorization, the entry fiction kicks in and they can detain them effectively indefinitely. And how exactly does one go about proving one did not enter without authorization while sitting in detention? And there is no one phone call required in this type of detention. You're just gone. This is happening to people right now. Someone else has to notice the person disappeared.

I think the Mars thing has always been Musk's social hack to both force humans to expand beyond Earth and make him a lot of money. Step 1: build the only private rocket company that can send humans to Mars; step 2: strand a bunch of people there; step 3: effectively forcing the government to pay you gobs of money to save them. This moon thing seems like a similar scheme that is just slightly less ambitious, or just another step added to the beginning to get the government to fund a larger chunk of your startup costs. The thing to keep in mind is that once you can move tons of cargo to the moon, you can pretty much put it anywhere in the solar system. It is getting out of Earth's gravity well that is the challenge. Besides the making him rich part, it really is a big step forward toward genuine spacefaring.

I think it is also worth keeping in mind that the budget to do any of this still small compared to what the US spends on the military all the time.

The first steps to real human space usage are: (1) building a prototype centrifugal habitat in low Earth orbit, and (2) building remote operated vehicles to mostly replace EVAs. (1) is necessary to determine what gravity is needed for humans to be able to live off-Earth for longer than a year without debilitating health consequences. It's unlikely that the moon's gravity will be enough for this, but maybe mars is, or maybe not. The cheapest way to figure this out is not to build a moon or mars colony first. Seems like it would make a lot more sense to know the health effects of moon gravity before planning the structure of a long-term moon installation. As for (2), using EVA for essentially all external maintenance, as is done on the space station, is not viable for accomplishing large amounts of work in space. Having humans present locally to operate the ROV is a big plus, however putting those humans in space suits just doesn't make sense. Just to have gloves that a human can squeeze without excessive fatigue, the person has to go through a lengthy decompression-recompression protocol. This is not viable for efficient and effective everyday work. Suited humans likely have their place, but most maintenance should be done by ROVs, just like it is done on deepwater installations on Earth.

Until these two things are on the agenda, manned spaceflight seems to be just a vanity project targeted at space tourism (short-term visits) or showing up other nations. (Note that the push for effective, affordable heavy lift is separate and has many other benefits outside manned spaceflight.)

Maybe it's time to just say that designing and marketing an AI to be good at "doing homework" is destroying things and hurting people. It's like social media targeting increased "engagement" at the cost of truth, social function, and the mental health of its users. It's just morally bad even if it isn't illegal. Providing wholesale solutions to homework someone is supposed to be doing to improve their skills has always been a Bad Thing(TM), it just hurts the person that it is being provided to. The grade they are getting is far less valuable than the increased knowledge obtained by doing the homework. Homework problems only produce new knowledge in the person doing them, not for society overall. They are always exercises with known solutions.

It seems a lot of people have been sold the myth that LLMs are just a tool like a calculator. But they aren't marketed and used as an assistive tool like that. They are often marketed as a plagiarism database (encouraging the user to represent the intentionally obfuscated output of the LLM as their own work, not as the output of a piece of software.) The evil part is that in many cases this appears intentional on the part of of the company running the LLM. i.e. they have intentionally made it a better tool for fraud and adapted to that use case instead of a more productive use case.

Funny, mostly what the Fed does is *destroy* money. "Money" is naturally created because banks can lend out what is deposited, over and over. The Fed limits that by charging banks a fee if they lend out too much. But the money that goes to the Fed to pay the fee vanishes. It is funny how badly people who bad mouth the Fed misunderstand how fractional reserve currency actually works.

If these guys can be deported to CECOT without due process, anyone can including you and the fox news grandpas. That's what lack of due process means.

Ah, the "Islam is not a religion" argument. Just proof that you will deny reality to support your conclusion, therefore it is pointless to argue with you.

Ha, Switzerland's main industry is basically kleptocrat money laundering. Let's not have any illusions here.

Maybe a bug in reading an obscure 1995 file format doesn't deserve a 90-day countdown clock since it impacts such a small number of people. That seems like the problem to me, an automated process run amok outside of its original assumptions.

No, even a "trained" person is not allowed to just reproduce copyrighted works and get paid for it, even as a mishmash. And that's not even getting into the degree to which the "AI" might just be a glorified index and storage system, which means it really does have a copy of the copyrighted work in it and therefore the model weights themselves are a derivative work.

I think there should be no question that a semi-arbitrary algorithm optimized to reproduce a dataset under certain operations is a derivative work of that dataset. Full stop. A model is a derivative work of the training data. Anything else is just a misunderstanding of how the technology works and makes no sense. Yes, OpenAI's business is basically built on intentionally pushing this misunderstanding. There is an indexing exception to copyright, but for what we are currently calling "AI", indexing and storage are inseparable, so this exception should not apply. Anything else just makes AI a copyright washing machine and copyright basically ceases to exist.

I think you are missing that New Glenn is a heavy lift rocket and it works. For any other vendor except SpaceX, a successful first launch to orbit with another one coming up within less than a year (next week) is clear success. (SpaceX was doing that with landing and reuse on the months timescale, but there was a bit of a stumble on that earlier this year.) And Blue Origin at least seems to have a shot at making New Glenn reusable, again the only competition for SpaceX. With Starship and New Glenn in operation, two reusable heavy lift rockets, the space industry will completely change. This is why the comments referenced in the summary appear so out of touch. The entire structure of how things are planned and executed in space is about to change, which the existing Artemis plan accounts for. But the announcement indicates thinking about things in the old form.

Most locks exist to make it clear that unauthorized entry is B&E not just trespassing. The lock is just a nuisance, the main deterrent is the higher charge. The actual protection is the insurance.

In case anyone else is wondering, it does seem the summary is misleading at the end. The table indicates that before first unlock they can only get a small amount of data - the OS and some info about installed apps, no user data. (The summary says Pixel 9 is "supported" BFU, but that is only what cellebrite apparently calls "BFU data" not full file system (FFS).) So, as parent states, none of the Pixel devices listed are vulnerable to full access from a cold state.

Well, personal responsibility is the con the right is selling, but I think the current situation is exactly what those who fund the right want. One policy position that does address this on the right is for "Tort reform" which usually means making the owners even less accountable by protecting the owned company from financial liability. Your initial analysis was correct, if people don't want the government regulating their actions they must also give up the government protections for liability. One can advocate for more or less effective regulation compared to a chosen goal, but just advocating for "less regulation" is nonsensical, since the limited liability inherent in the existence of the company is itself a huge regulation restricting everyone.