Step 1: Propose a new data center.
Step 2: Leak false information claiming the current city council is planning to approve it.
Step 3: Agitprop a recall election.
Step 4: Front two slates of staunchly anti-data-center sockpuppets, one liberal and one conservative.
Step 5: Have the winner approve your data center.

And that's why "betrayal of public office" needs to be a capital offense.

Laughs in Californian.

Well then, it's a good thing only "ordinary members of the public" would ever dream of trying to crack your service to provide unintended access! Those pesky Russian hackers would never dream of using means "not discoverable through ordinary use", right?

I don't mean this to be pedantic, but humans do that as well. I'm singing along with what's on the radio as I write this; and someone far more musically talented than myself could no doubt substantially reproduce it word-for-word, note-for-note, and beat-for-beat.

If nothing else, I'm excited to see how the next decade of AI-related legal cases shines a spotlight on the (usually unspoken) legal assumption that only humans have agency.

There are at least four major Federal subsidy programs for providing high-speed internet access to rural and underserved populations - BEAD ($42.45B), ReConnect (open-ended), Community Connect (open-ended), and RDOF ($20.4B).

Won't someone please think of poor, poor SpaceX and all the other "unreasonably prejudiced" satellite internet companies who have been all too happy to suck at Uncle Sam's teat for decades while failing to meet the required level of service?

I think the best term for AI luddites such as yourself is "AI Vegans".

Like vegans, you know a tiny sliver of reality, and make it your whole world. Like vegans, we don't need to know you're like this, because you'll tell us. Like vegans, you're wrong on almost everything. Like vegans, you believe your faith makes you a higher form of being, and those who disagree just "are lesser" i.e. "do not understand math".

Like vegans, you'll mostly go away in a decade or two.

It's actually the opposite. It was stagnant between 1960s and early 2000s. Where we thought we'd need to program it, because we were modelling it on ourselves even back then, and back then we thought brain was biologically fully pre-programmed.

Then fMRI brain imaging came, we understood how brain functions, that's it's not pre-programmed but learning from basic LLM-like template and then inferring based on what it learned (remember the "90% of the brain is not used" pre-fMRI myth?), and within a decade, basics of modern AI being "learn and infer" principle became mainstream.

And then they look at alternatives, and conclude "yes, this is in fact by far the best system we've ever had for this purpose".

"It's not perfect" is utopian thinking. What matters is "is this the best system we had so far".

Curious opinion considering that legal profession is mostly applied about logic. You learn the rules, and they you use logic to apply them to each situation.

Of course we do. We literally modeled current gen AI on it.

In fact, we even know that LLMs overwhelmingly struggle learning where humans struggle as well. Because it's the same process.

The only difference is that we are embodied and spend decades learning, while they have far more compute and memory and are able to learn in days. Each grants us slightly different advantages and disadvantages within the learning process.

Which is fundamentally the same process.

It is literally learning though. It's a neural network modeled on human brain, learning in the same way human brain does.

You going "lalalala, can't hear you" isn't changing reality. It's still learning.

Can someone explain how this is a copyright issue? And I don't mean that in the angsty teen "everything should be free" sense, I sincerely don't get how this involves "copying" whatsoever.

AI companies may be playing fast and loose with IP, but using music for training is at worst a private performance for educational purposes. Or is the recording industry back to the good old days of claiming playing a CD is "copying" it into the air, and then our ears are "copying" into our brains? Because that's functionally what the likes of Anthropic are doing with it.

To be clear, I'm neither an AI apologist or fanboy. I find it extremely useful at work, while still fearing it will eventually put us all in a zoo for our own protection (and that's the good outcome).

You're talking about P/E ratios in general, but there's an important distinction to be made when it comes to the likes of SpaceX.

SpaceX isn't a profitable company, so its P/E would technically be negative. That crazy high number around 200 we've seen is actually the P/S, which is kind of like P/E if you ignore expenses.

But to be clear - Higher isn't better. It theoretically means people have more faith in future earnings; in practice, it's purely a measure of hype, and higher is primarly worse.

If working conditions are so deplorable they make a four day weekend seem worth literally risking death for another two years... Maybe that's not somewhere you want to be working in the first place?

Sure, a get-out-of-brimstone day pass might be nice once in a while, but having a chance to use it in the first place means you're still in hell.

Intentionally interfering with an FCC licensed device will get you in some hot water.

"Accidentally" putting another router nearby on the same channel but a few MHz sour (stay within the licensed band!), however, is conveniently interference the other router is required to deal with politely.

...Of course, that would also crush your WiFi throughput. The simple right answer here is to put any ISP-issued hardware in the trash and run your own router.