I don't want to start a fight, but you seem reasonable enough that I'm going to try to point a thing or two out. As an American, I see a lot of holes in your logic which sort of exemplifies why Europe is having trouble competing. Let me give an example.

You say that there are various EU companies focused on AI and datacenter services, and some of them are so big that they serve an entire EU country. You seem to think that a company that meets the Netherlands needs is huge.

In the US, the Netherlands would be somewhat larger than New Jersey.

In the US, companies can grow a solid order of magnitude larger before they hit any sort of border or cross-regulation issues. Size matters. That makes the US companies way more competitive. They will have more and larger product and service offerings, and they will have the scale to offer lower prices.

There are a *lot* of articles about this issue in the smart news sources. Until the EU countries harmonize huge chunks of their individual country regulations and allow companies to easily grow across borders, their companies will have a very difficult time competing with the big US and Chinese companies.

"insidertrading.com"

But since I didn't say that, doesn't that sort of put you in a fantasy reality?

I totally support this. Its great that Europe is asserting its rights and taking control of its data for the sake of privacy and freedom.

Now. Who is gonna store the data? A European company I assume. Great. Which one? Its gotta be big enough to have the required scale. Except Europe doesnt like new big companies. If one doesnt exist, theyre gonna have to let one grow. Except everything about EU law is designed to tie companies up in red tape and prevent quick growth. Also, the company will probably have to operate in ALL the member countries, and each of those is a sovereign nation with its own laws and they dont agree on ANYTHING. Each with its own set of red tape. Where will the company be headquartered? If its not France, the French wont allow it. Ditto for a dozen other EU members.

I could go on. I totally encourage this. But Europe would have to change a LOT of things to actually make it happen.

At the moment, the reality is that its impossible to grow a new large company in the EU.

Was there a point to that?

Hmmm. Unlike a totally serious AC like you.

Yet you don't bother explaining how I am supposedly misrepresenting you. You have never actually said what was supposedly creatively snipped by me to change the meaning of what you wrote and how it does so.

Sigh. And around and around we go. Once gain, the interpretations and claims I make are not the same s the actual quote. I did not alter the quote in any way that removed context or meaning. My interpretation does not have to agree with you. I honestly represented what you actually wrote.

If party A is the council and B is the President, and C is Congress, how can what you are saying there be consistent with your original claim that the board is "there to help the President provide a proposal to Congress" and that the board "...once the President make's [sic] the call..." is "obligated to help with that direction."

You don't seem to be able to keep what you are even claiming straight, so we keep going around and around pointlessly. Your original claim was essentially that the board should advise the President but that, once the President had made a decision, the board would then need to adjust their advice to Congress based on the President's direction. Now are you reversing that and saying I was right all along?

I do not keep omitting it, you're just flat out playing pretend at this point.

For the rest of that, you seem to be implying that the board directly proposes a budget to Congress? This is a new claim. You know that's not how it works, right?

In other words, you're a coward and an idiot.

I am not conflating it with budgetary spending. Leeway in how to spend money is simply one of the pieces of authority that Congress can delegate. As for your claim that, if the authority is to be limited, Congress seems to say so, do you think that Congress has to say so before the fact? They are totally empowered to take back any of their own authority they have delegated in the past because delegation does not mean that you give up authority. That's why it is called delegation and not a surrender or gift.

I don't think I'm the one with the reading comprehension issues if we've gotten this far down the thread and you're just getting here now.

This is quite obviously actually a case of the executive trying to usurp legislative authority. The widely disputed reasoning in a couple of recent Supreme Court cases from the shadow docket do not change that.

Quite simply not true. The function of the Executive is to carry out the laws enacted by Congress. The direction of the work product of the Executive is decided by Congress. The role of the executive is supposed to be to handle the practical aspects of heading in that direction.

As an example, take Kennedy's speech on how the US had to go to the moon. In it, he explicitly said:

"Let it be clear—and this is a judgment which the Members of the Congress must finally make—let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action."

So, the President did ask Congress for a direction, and Congress approved it. But the direction of the work product of the executive - in that case, the Apollo program - was absolutely something that Congress not only had a say in, but had absolute control over. If they had voted not to go to the moon, the direction of the executive's work product would have been something else.

Just more abject nonsense from you. You make claims, but can't back them up in the slightest.

There were plenty of very credible reasons to doubt it and lots of motive for lying in the first place. I admit that maybe I am not giving teenage script kiddies who call themselves things like "Big Balls" and are affiliated with cybercrime groups and white supremacist organizations the benefit of the doubt. Must be my personal biases against complete unqualified people doing professional work.

That's a nice quote. Where did it come from?

While it is true that, if you divide things up by political party affiliation, 95% of Democrats have an unfavorable opinion of him, since 56% of the overall population has an unfavorable view of him and only 33% have a favorable view, it's clearly not just left wingers who don't like the guy. Considering that there is no other recorded incident in either Rebuplican or Democrat administrations of one cabinet member giving another cabinet member a black eye in recorded history other than the black eye that Musk originally claimed came from his toddler son, but turned out to be from Bessent, it does appear that there are Republicans who don't like the guy either. As it turns out, even outside of politics, a lot of people who end up around Musk, but are not forced into some sort of position of subservience to him end up really disliking him or at least having a hard time finding a way to like him.

Regarding Musk:

"...the man who has lost his mind..." "train wreck" "completely off the rails" --Donald Trump

"The principles of DOGE were very popular... Elon was not" --Scott Bessent

"Pathetic man-child" --Vivian Musk, one of his children.

"Spoilt Child" -- Errol Musk, his father. Of course Musk has said his father has done "almost every evil thing you can possibly think of"

"his gift is not empathy" --Kimball Musk, his brother

"terrified of his own cousin" is the way that a Twitter executive described James Musk, a cousin after finding him apparently sobbing.

"Jekyll-and-Hyde" -- Tosca Musk, his sister, describing his personality.

"Odd, odd Duck" -- Susie Wiles, White House chief of staff.

"I have been in the same room with Elon, and he always tries to be funny. And he's not funny. Like, at all." most irritating person I've ever had to deal with." -- Anonymous senior officials

"...holding the children hostage..." -- Grimes, mother of some of his children.

All of the evidence seems to suggest that it doesn't take a "sad echo chamber" to find Musk unlikable, it just takes being around him.

While technically true it's not really meaningful here. What matters is the legal point of view.

From a cognitive point of view, yes. From a legal point of view, no. For example, for judges, dislike of a party in a trial is not a basis for recusal. They are expected to exercise professional detachment and impartiality. The same basic principle applies for juror selection. Dislike is a potential red flag and, ideally, a judge can get around the problem by simply selecting jurors who have no existing dislike for the party. When that is not possible though, the Judge is meant to judge whether or not the juror appears to be someone who can also exercise detachment and be impartial. They are also supposed to steer the jury instructions, allowed testimony, etc. in such a way that the jury is equipped to decide the trial, to the degree possible, based on the facts of the case at hand, not on their emotions.

Which the judge does their best to provide. What else exactly are you expecting?

Not going to bother with addressing that point by point. I am just going to say that clearly represents your own personal "bias" (if that's the term we're using). You may view everything as unfair to Musk because you are a fan, but that doesn't mean that it actually is unfair.

As a matter of fact, yes. Specifically, to the Greenland region.

Although a golden bridge of grossly outsized proportions and festooned with tacky ornamentation would be much preferred.

Your own AI system is number 1 at neonazi propaganda and revenge porn. When you put on an act that you care about societal ills, absolutely *nobody* buys it. It's not a good look. You're not convincing anyone.

Buddy, I respect your accomplishments. You deserve your spot as the world's richest man. And, overall, I understand that you're trying to sincerely push humanity forward, since that goal lines up well with your empire-building. But, don't try and act like a caring leader. It's not a good look on you. You're no better than Zuckerberg at the empathy thing. When you try to make an "I care" face, I can literally see your face muscles spasming.

It's not that. LLMs reproduce an output of consciousness, but they way they do so isn't fundamentally any different than a tape recorder or even a book. It's a deterministic process that we can fully reproduce by doing calculations on a piece of paper.

It's not that there's some "magic" in our brains, but there's obviously a very complex process at work that we don't understand. It's also true that the "neural networks" used to run LLMs have only the most superficial similarity to actual brains. Just because LLMs can produce similar reasoning it doesn't mean they're suddenly able to produce other second order effects.

Is it possible that LLMs reproduce this process? We can't authoritatively say no if we don't understand the process. But that's no different from saying a rock way also be conscious.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Dawkins doesn't have any.