There are at least three different reasons this is bad.

First, this is one more sign (of about 15 court cases at this point) that this court is willing to give Trump massive powers simply because he is pushing for them and they agree with him politically. And there's no reason to remotely think he's going to stop.

Second, it means that the Presidency (already an already too powerful office in the modern form for any one person) is going to be even more powerful under for the first time under a far more authoritarian person without any safeguards in place.

Third, is more subtle: even if we get through this with Trump with only some damage, the long-term damage and threat to stability is massive. In general, parliamentary systems or presidential systems with somewhat weak presidencies are more stable than those with powerful presidencies. One sees this in for example the high instability in many presidential republics in Central America and South America. The standard explanation for this is that when there's functionally a winner-take-all system, the stakes becoming higher and the degree to which any side has an incentive to moderate becomes small. One question then is why this hasn't happened in the US? One explanation is that the US had the illusion of a not deeply strong President, in part because everyone (including the Presidents) agreed tacitly not to push the limits of their authority that much. The precedent breaking nature here undermines that illusion, and makes it more likely that we'll have years (possibly decades) where the Democrats and Republicans will even more than usual treat everything as a zero sum game with no respects for democratic norms.

The bottom line is that everything about this is bad.

You can ask Iraq about that. The ultimate UN Treaty is the Charter itself, whose main provision is "no war", i.e. Article II.4, no use of force against fellow members.

This would all be a bit overwrought and off-topic, except Trump has broadened the exception from international law from "if I have a story about a nuclear threat", to "If I feel that we signed a bad trade deal and I want to throw it in the garbage on a whim"...even for trade deals HE signed a few years ago.

"International Law" now means just about nothing. What's Canada going to do with that lawbreaking? Take it to a US court?
Iraq could theoretically have done that over the Iraq War, too ... hah. Americans are just finding out now how that feels, to have no appeal to justice.

My wife works in a library. Some of these people become not just defensive, but outright hostile. Part of the problem is socioeconomic and education based. A lot (not all but a lot) of people using libraries on a daily basis don't have much formal education and have little experience with computers. Much of my wife's work is just helping people do very basic tasks, like showing someone how to open a Word document, or how to download or upload a file for a job application. So for probably some of these patrons, ChatGPT must seem like magic. The interface is simply typing what they want, and even highly misspelled or garbled requests will generate something like a coherent response from it, so they don't even need to know what any icon means. And if one is dealing with people who often literally don't understand the difference between a file stored on a computer and a file on the cloud (to use one common example) then even explaining the idea of an AI hallucination is going to be an uphill battle.

As is the case for almost all international treaties, enforcement mechanisms are limited. Egregious violators will get pressure from other countries. Many countries will depend on citizens to enforce it. For example, in some countries regular citicizens can file lawsuits when their country is not fulfilling treaty obligations. But generally, when countries sign on to international treaties, most involved countries also pass internal legislation to comply with treaty aspects. This is the way for almost all international treaties, and it largely works. People have an idea that international law doesn't work but the vast majority works fine, and we often just notice the serious failures and breakdowns, not all the stuff that is quietly working on a day-to-day basis.

So, how does anyone enter the workforce?

Never mind "jet lag"; this is proof positive that moving your body a single time zone is bad for your health.

If you have induction, how do you feel about the sound of the range? I still have an ancient gas burner (though I did install a good ventilation fan), but when I've cooked on an induction stove elsewhere, it both made an annoying high-pitched squeal (think old CRTs but louder) and had fan noises kicking on and off. It annoyed the crap out of me.

I don't want to get another gas burner, and technologically induction does seem like the clear winner, but the noise thing is really throwing me off. What's your experience?

This page claims over 400,000 recordings but links to a listing of only 187,034 audio files. I'm guessing the discrepancy is the girth of the suit: IA agreed to take down the files that the plaintiffs could prove were theirs and no money changed hands.

One reason for quarterly reporting is that it gives greater transparency and insight into how a business actually works. Many businesses are seasonal. Most obviously, virtually all retail has its best quarter at the end of the calendar year. But many other types of businesses have key cycles each year that are tied to, for example, the buying habits of their largest customers. Suppliers matter, too; if farms have a bad quarter due to weather or other factors, for example, you're going to want to watch how that impacts food producers somewhere down the line.

Much of what you wrote is wrong or misleading or more of a rant than anything with content. You didn't respond at all to the point that the environmental damage here is tiny. But I do want to address two specific bits which are the most contentful parts:

This is confused at multiple levels, but does almost touch on a valid point. It is true that a lot of people were awful maskers, and lifted up their masks all the time, or had terrible seals, making their masks not function. And then you had people doing things like wearing masks in indoor restaurants and then taking them off when they sat down to eat as if their dining table was somehow protected. And if you go back to Slashdot, you'll see me explicitly saying that all of this was awful behavior. People failing to mask properly isn't a problem with masks though any more than people dying in car accidents due to not wearing their seatbelts is a sign that seatbelts don't work. And the point about car windows out non-airtight cars misses something we figured out pretty early in the pandemic, namely that outdoor environments in general were pretty safe.

People didn't need a hundred vaccines, but we're still getting new covid variants, and vaccines are still helping prevent people from getting seriously sick. Vaccines worked, and they drastically saved lives. Here is a really good essay about that https://www.natesilver.net/p/the-2-key-facts-about-us-covid-policy which shows how prior to the vaccines, death rates in the US among Democrats and Republicans looked nearly identical and only after vaccines showed up they started diverging. There's one easy explanation for that. And it is worth noting that the author there Nate Silver, generally takes the position (and argues explicitly in that piece) that mask mandates were not substantially effective, even as vaccines worked really well. It may be worth realizing that while you somehow see vaccines and masks as interconnected issues, they aren't, and not everyone falls into the vaccines-bad-masks-bad and vaccines-good-masks-good categories. To use two fun anecdotes: One of the most strict maskers I know was a couple who were highly anti-vax and was also taking HCQ as a preventative. One of the most vocally pro-vax people I know is a Rabbi who despised not getting to see his congregant's faces and was pushing for the vaccines so people would feel comfortable unmasking. Maybe don't treat all matters as some giant soccer game with two large sizes?

Completely true and also true that this is a problem. But note that these are tiny levels of pollution which if not for the controversial nature of masks would likely be getting little attention. For example, they estimate that this lead to 214kg of bisphenol B into the environment as their upper bound. But in 2010 around 400,000 kg of bisphenol A were released into the environment with slightly smaller numbers for bisphenol B https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0882596309001407. Since 2010, there's been a concerted effort to reduce bisphenol release, but even if that's been by an order of magnitude, this is a a less than 0.1% increase in worldwide production. Similar remarks apply to the microplastic production where the ratio is even more extreme.

Yeah, this is a very good analogy for what the concern is.

No, the concern is that as these systems get better, they will be substitutes for the sort of exploration and connection making that a mathematician needs to learn as a fundamental foundation for doing research. Using an LLM to suggest approaches and connections can be useful, but it doesn't give the same underlying basic skill set to do deeply original work.

The emphasis here is interesting. The users were impressed by it, and comparing it to a junior researcher is wildly better than earlier systems. And the warning at the end is precisely relevant because the systems are starting to have some potential usefulness in research. I'm a mathematician and this sort of very mixed experience with ChatGPT in the GPT5 form is close to my own experience. Relevant recent anecdote:

Relevant math background: the Gaussian integers are the complex numbers of the form a+bi where a and b are good, old-fashioned integers. For example, 2+3i or -1 +2i are Gaussian integers. Any integer n is a Gaussian integer since you can write it as n+0i. But say or 3- 0.5 i would not be Gaussian integers. Also notation: We write x|y to mean y is a multiple of x. We can use this notation in our regular integers (so for example 2|8 but it is not true that 3|8 ) or in the Gaussian integers where we are then allowed to multiple by another Gaussian integer. For example (2+i)| (2+i)(3-i). A good exercise if you have not seen the Gaussian integers before: Convince yourself that 1+i | 1+3i.

It also turns out that the Gaussian integers have an analog of unique prime factorization just as that in the usual integers. The Gaussian integers also have a notion of size called the norm. For a given Gaussian integer a+bi, the norm is a^2 +b^2 .

Recently I had to prove a specific Lemma where I needed to find all Gaussian integers and where both are Gaussian primes, and b|a^2 + a +1 and a|b+1. I had as a template a very similar Lemma in the integers which was a Lemma which said exactly which integers and b such that b|a^2 + a +1 and a|b+1. I worked out the proof, essentially modifying the version in the integers. Then, I did something I've often been doing after I've completed a small Lemma, namely giving the task to ChatGPT or another system and seen how they've done. For prior iterations (GPT3, ChatGPT , GPT4, 4o) this has almost universally been a disaster. But this time I gave the task to GPT5, and gave it the integer version to start with. It tried to do the same basic task and produced a result pretty close to mine, but it had multiple small errors in the process, to the point where I'm unsure if using it would have sped things up. But at the same time, the errors were genuinely small. For example, in proving in one subcase the system claimed that a specific number's norm needed to be at most 9, when it needed to be at most 10. These are not the sort of large jumps in reasoning that one saw with GPT4 or 4o. It might have been the case that if I had given this to GPT5 before proving it myself and then had corrected its errors I would have saved time. I generally doubt this is the case, but the fact that it is close to the point where that's now plausible is striking.

Let's compare, shall we?

Little Bobby Tables:

• No framework required: conventional database entry + payload only
• Wreaks havoc in an instant
• Total size: 32 bytes

This:

• Downloads ollama (672 MB, on Windows)
• Downloads a 14 GB data file for the model itself
• Requires a bare minimum of 16 GB of VRAM—and still runs like absolute molasses, eating up all resources
• Total size: 15 GB

Personally, I'm on Team Tables here. Maybe in a decade or three this will be practical.