And there's a reason the Inquisition burned books. Oddly, Ireland is about the only place where those that would burn the books were themselves burned in the dark ages. It's something Seneca wrote about before the dark ages and before the inquisition, off hand, can't recall the exact wording, but the conclusion is that some have a need to put others in charge of their lives so that they don't have to take responsibility for themselves and their outcomes. Sort of like the conservative meme that being poor is a choice, rather than a failure of governance to control the economic rapine of others.

Even the most casual study of divinity will show that almost all religions consider simply thinking of some things is a "sin". Almost all religions grant mankind free will, and the supreme being (call them what you may) "allows" for the "choice of sin".

So, by prohibiting "sin", they are, in effect, declaring themselves to be smarter than their Deity, who, in The Wisdom of that Deity, granted the ability to "sin".
I'm pretty sure that's not how that works.

If you spend time with the higher-tier (paid) reasoning models, you’ll see they already operate in ways that are effectively deductive (i.e., behaviorally indistinguishable) within the bounds of where they operate well. So not novel theorem proving. But give them scheduling constraints, warranty/return policies, travel planning, or system troubleshooting, and they’ll parse the conditions, decompose the problem, and run through intermediate steps until they land on the right conclusion. That’s not "just chained prediction". It’s structured reasoning that, in practice, outperforms what a lot of humans can do effectively.

When the domain is checkable (e.g., dates, constraints, algebraic rewrites, SAT-style logic), the outputs are effectively indistinguishable from human deduction. Outside those domains, yes it drifts into probabilistic inference or “reading between the lines.” But to dismiss it all as “not deduction at all” ignores how far beyond surface-level token prediction the good models already are. If you want to dismiss all that by saying “but it’s just prediction,” you’re basically saying deduction doesn’t count unless it’s done by a human. That’s just redefining words to try and win an Internet argument.

They do quite a bit more than that. There's a good bit of reasoning that comes into play and newer models (really beginning with o3 on the ChatGPT side) can do multi-step reasoning where it'll first determine what the user is actually seeking, then determine what it needs to provide that, then begin the process of response generation based on all of that.

This is not a surprise, just one more data point that LLMs fundamentally suck and cannot be trusted.

Huh? LLMs are not perfect and are not expert-level in every single thing ever. But that doesn't mean they suck. Nothing does everything. A great LLM can fail to produce a perfect original proof but still be excellent at helping people adjust the tone of their writing or understanding interactions with others or developing communication skills, developing coping skills, or learning new subjects quickly. I've used ChatGPT for everything from landscaping to plumbing successfully. Right now it's helping to guide my diet, tracking macros and suggesting strategies and recipes to remain on target.

LLMs are a tool with use cases where they work well and use cases where they don't. They actually have a very wide set of use cases. A hammer doesn't suck just because I can't use it to cut my grass. That's not a use case where it excels. But a hammer is a perfect tool for hammering nails into wood and it's pretty decent at putting holes in drywall. Let's not throw out LLMs just because they don't do everything everywhere perfectly at all times. They're a brand new novel tool that's suddenly been put into millions of peoples' hands. And it's been massively improved over the past few years to expand its usefulness. But it's still just a tool.

This is a case where the matter in contention is subject to the "Moron in a hurry" test.
If a moron in a hurry confuses the owner of Meta with a bankruptcy lawyer, then that moron needs to have their internet license revoked.

Look, I know I'm an old fart. I know I'm a curmudgeon too. And yes, it was almost 10 years before I gave up my wired keyboard and mouse for wireless (not entirely all my idea, it as part of [Secret Squirrel] requirements.) I am, however, a technophile - when I see the advantages to using tech. An example where I don't see an advantage is replacing the 90 cent stiff wire with $275 "motivators" (step motors) in automobile vents that go out of registration, then out of calibration, then go kaput. Requiring a new $275 dollar part and a $200 programming fee.
EACH.

What no one has been able to explain adequately to me is where the value of crypto is. (I know what is claimed, I think, but it still boils down to "it has value because people think it has value" - a circular argument that applies just as much to crypto as it does to any printed fiat currency.)

My base objection is that crypto, like a fiat currency, has zero intrinsic value. Unlike metals or gems, neither a printed bill or a bit wallet can be made into something else worth the value it represents. Bluntly, crypto is a mathematical answer to a question no one asked and no one can use. It's not like Maxwell's constant where the answer has a measurable, useful proof.

Fiat currency is regulated by established gate keepers that are accountable. Crypto is a wild west of pinky promise and cross my heart pledges as far as I can see.

To me, crypto has no value. So you could offer a billion coins to me for a buck and I'd still think I'd rather have the buck than a bunch of ones and zeros beause no one has adequately explained the value of crypto that I've run into.

Real ID is this

It has inertial compensation - it tilts. The reason is partly track geometry as you point out, partly dwell times, but mostly because of catenary upgrades are lagging.

Foreign actors might cause a minor blip likely to go unnoticed to use in the future. Why DMV? Because with the stupid "Real ID" they can inject documents for their actors on the ground. I've seen at cloud providers foreign actors going absolutely ape shit trying to get into the US budget system. When you know where the money goes, you can figure out a lot of things. But you're correct, likely this is someone that is wanting to piss off government or is looking to hold their systems hostage for ransom.

It's terrible this young light is extinguished. It's horrible. I'm not sure though that the blame belongs on machines here.

If your child is contemplating suicide, why don't you have a clue?
If you had a clue, why didn't you act?
If you didn't have a clue, why were you not involved with your own child?

Truth is that the way American society is that parenting has become fifth or sixth place in adults list of responsibilities. Making money to live is first, not the kids.

I'm of the opinion that it is not the Internet's job to raise my child. That's my job as a parent. I'm not advocating for an Ozzie and Harriet 1950's idealized society that never existed either. A unified path for all to follow is a chimera, ridiculous and unobtainable. Falling into the deception of what should be "allowed" and "disallowed" factual information is a slippery slope to Double-think and Thought Crime.

No news isn't good news - it simply means you don't know. An absence of reporting is not an indication of an absents of exploit.
I do know that corporate America goes to great lengths to not announce pervasive intrusions. Times I've had direct knowledge the company came under fire from government regulators before admitting publicly to the problem, and hid it behind NDAs before and after. Buddy had to testify and that part was behind closed doors.

What does that have to do with women reporting men as having acted aggressively?

Why would they lie if they don't even know you?

I'm an old man now. Been quite the ladies man when I was young, strong, not fat and had hair. Never once accused of being violent or even discourteous.

Dude, you aren't going to prison over an app entry. Are you worried your credit rating will get you three hots and a cot? It's the same difference. It's someone's opinion of you.

What isn't a luxury, the ability to confront someone with an opinion of you or sex? Because I can pretty much guarantee you won't die from a lack of sex.

Seems to me that the most lies I hear are from the right wing. Get yourself dating some smart ladies and that won't be a problem. Well, unless you can't be somewhat courteous and gentlemanly. Or try using paid partners. Money will buy lots, I mean, look at the Right wing guys. They cheat on their wives all the time and call them horrable names and they stick around for more. Kinda sick I think. My ladies wouldn't put up with that kind of thing.

And cheated on all of them.

Including young woman "hostess" that were 18 as "masseuses". This proves that yes, money really can buy you anything, up to a supreme court judge's robes - with the judge still in 'em.
Speaking of - Where's Melania? We know where Kristi Nome is but she's a bit long in the tooth for Donnie.

The reply is missing the point. I've read your other replies. You're ordinarily incisive, so I will recap:

Prohibition is not a total, encompassing solution. It's a stopgap measure at best. To effect a lasting change to behavior, one needs must change the person's behavior. And the only one that can do that is the person. You can annoy them. You can fine them, lock them up. They will return to be behavior if that's all you do. It's my opinion this is why incarceration in the USA has such high recidivism - because the right wing sees treating the underlying causes as being "weak on crime". Yet per capita, the USA locks up more people than most dictatorships except El Salvador Cuba, Rwanda and Turkmenistan.
.
AGAIN, and that maybe good enough for the rest of society that is not experiencing the undesired behavior. It is not a "forever" solution. Smoking is a great example of that. Prohibiting it worked for society in the short term, but it was the change to culture (no ads, age restrictions, location prohibition, fines for the manufactures, cessation of crop support payments, addiction treatment, high tax) that has had the most lasting effect.