If I help you get rid of the gun you shot someone with, technically I didn't commit the murder. I'm still on the hook for it though.

This isn't that different: it's the state that violates constitutional rights. Flock helps with that. They should be treated like the guy helping getting rid of the murder weapon.

Why would Al Lewis be able to fire generals?

Current AI will never be intelligent. It can only match patterns and training data. It can't conjure novel thoughts. We need an entirely new approach to achieve actual AGI or singularities. But as you state, AI is a soul-less tool. It's stupid people who will doom us. AI is just an accessory to our destruction. So no, the horrors of AI won't be Skynet, WestWorld or the Matrix or iRobot, but Idiocracy and Wall-E

We didn't fire a bunch of competent generals or run them out of office for various political reasons. I'm also extremely at ease because we didn't put a secretary of defense in, excuse me Secretary of war, solely because he was the only candidate who would not rule out ordering the US army to fire on American citizens.

We literally elected the king of debt. 1/4 of all US debt is Trump. That's 10 trillion dollars in debt.

And we did it twice. But I need did you hear how she laughs? And let's not forget, Trump low prices, Kamala high prices.

Well too bad you're going to get a regular old Nazi from planet Earth.

Apparently his family has actual ties to Nazis from his original country too. Can't say I'm surprised but here we are

They are talking about imaginary Doomsday scenarios to distract from actual major problems coming down the pike.

There's the obvious massive amounts of water and electricity being used at a time when we keep disrupting energy markets for stupid reasons and we're in a constant state of drought for well understood and equally stupid reasons.

But the big problem is AI is a massive automation push. In a world where if you don't work you don't eat we are doing everything we can to eliminate work.

Eventually it's going to erode the tax base and the spending base. There won't be enough money in the economy to sustain it. And it will start to collapse.

And remember no matter how good a shot you you're going to run out of ammo before the world runs out of desperate people with nothing to lose.

No one fed it to me I figured it out myself.

It wasn't hard. The isps are pretty open about wanting to do away with net neutrality and what they're going to do if they pull it off.

Companies have these things called industry groups where they get together and talk about all the nasty things they want to do to us. It is generally out in the open because a lot of folks, yourself included, don't like to think about all the nasty things that they would do to us if we didn't have a huge number of laws against that and a shitload of bureaucrats policing them.

Incidentally you have also been trained to hate bureaucrats. That is on purpose. White collar crime is not enforced by a gun and a badge it's enforced by a clipboard and notebook paper.

It is hardly a surprise that a criminal would put effort into undermining or bribing whoever is enforcing the law. It's really obvious when a cop is on the take it is less obvious when a revolving door makes a bureaucrat look the other way or worse and honest bureaucrat enforcing the law gets fired and replaced by a corrupt one by a political appointee...

Forget government, any ISP that tried it would lose all their business customers the next day. Basic economics and game theory say that won't happen.

What you're saying is that the law was never needed and remains unneeded. Thus, it never should have existed. Why force companies to waste time and money to show they are complying with a law about something they never intended to do? The only beneficiary is whoever the State pays to review compliance. Everyone else is harmed when that compliance cost gets pushed down to consumers, who are also the ones paying the State's reviewers to verify that the thing-that-won't-happen still hasn't happened.

I wouldn't seek any advice from whoever it was that fed you that conspiracy theory, unless you were just being facetious.

Anyhow, you don't put laws into effect to maintain a status quo that nobody is interested in challenging. That's a stupid reason to waste time and create unnecessary red tape. And since the law was clearly unnecessary, it should be repealed. Otherwise, it just makes things more expensive while providing no benefit. Companies have to waste time and money showing that they aren't doing something they were never going to do in the first place.

That was the entire purpose of the law it was to maintain the status quo which is net neutrality.

The purpose of the law was to put isps on notice that they would have a fight on their hands if they started violating net neutrality. And while they have poked at the edges laws like this have mostly prevented them from doing the really nasty stuff.

What you have here is called a chesterton's fence. It is a fence that you don't take down unless you understand why it was put up. I'm not talking about net neutrality I think at this point we all know it. I'm talking about this specific law. You don't take this law down without knowing why it was put up and I explained that above so I think it's safe to say we don't want to take this law down.

I am of course taking for granted the Trump is wrong but I think that's one of the safest bets in human history. The Man known as the king of debt who is bankrupted everything he's ever touched and is only not homeless because he was laundering money for the Russian mob is not someone I would seek legal advice from.

No. Do you? And if so, what were the terms?

ATT ran fiber down the road past my subdivision 3-4 years ago, only ran it in a month or two ago, and just now started delivering fliers that say it's "coming soon".

Which is pretty fast for ATT.

But thanks for the useless outrage porn. They will sue and they will win because the letter of the law is pretty fucking clear here and Trump does not have the authority to do this but they will waste a huge awount of energy fighting Trump.

Voters will get angry at democrats for doing nothing but not at Republicans for actively harming the country.

This is something Democrat strategists have been complaining about. Specifically if you're a republican you can get up on stage and yell God and country! And get votes.

The exact same thing does not work for democrats. Democrat voters could care less about your religious affiliation or how stupidly patriotic you might be. Democrat voters expect results and that would be fine if the Democrats could deliver results but it's really hard to do that when the other party is actively sabotaging the country and has been since newt Gingrich created the contract with America as a unified policy of blocking the Democrats from doing any good while doing active harm whenever the Republicans happen to get any power

And because we have all been conditioned to revile partisan politics when you point this out people just dismiss it. Almost as if someone was actively trying to do that for a reason ...

I'm not a conspiracy theorist I'm a conspiracy analyst.

Has California's net neutrality law changed anything? Does it do anything? I remember how we didn't have it at a national level, then we did have it, then we didn't have it again. So far as I could tell, nothing changed.