Propose someone build one of these in the ocean opposite one of your king's golf courses. That'll end this stupidity.
Seems like a great business strategy. Propose to build one offshore near one of King Trump's golf courses and then he'll pay you $1B of taxpayer money not to build it. Rinse, repeat.
Income tax and welfare.
I'm not sure that gets you there.
Income taxes required an amendment to the constitution (16), precisely because the Constitution says that direct taxes must be apportioned to the states (proportional to population), and so the federal government could not impose a direct, individual income tax. The 16A authorized the income tax, but it did not authorize a wealth tax or other asset tax.
As for welfare, the origin of that power is not Article III, though SCOTUS did have to decide whether to adopt the Madisonian or Hamiltonian intepretation of the General Welfare clause. Hamilton won and the federal government can (and does, extensively!) spend tax money on welfare payments and subsidies.
So income redistribution is constitutional, but wealth redistribution is not, at least at the federal level, and without a constitutional amendment. States probably have more freedom, but they face a competitive risk: wealthy people will leave.
Undeniably the cheapest fuel sources are renewables now, wind, solar, and *probably* wave (I'm not sure if the maths done on that, but it seems plausible?)
Instead we are now paying billions to NOT do wind power.
This period of history is fueled by madness.
"US Copyright Office has recently decided that AI cannot be an author of a creative work"
So if AI is a "co-author", but can't be an author, that just leaves the human as the sole author.
It won't work: Google is a for profit company, and there are A LOT of profits to be made in the made from the military. They will stop operating in the UK before they give up that much money.
DeepMind is the core of Google's AI research, and it began as a UK company that Google purchased. It's still the case that the bulk of their core researchers are there. Ceasing operations in the UK would not only cost them a lot more than the US DoD will ever pay them, it would also cost them a lot of critical AI expertise.
That's kind of the point I was making. You don't see the connection.
I don't either. Can you spell it out?
Yeah, but this isn't analogous to giving a kid one beer, it's more like getting them a fake ID so they can buy their own. One is a one-time event, the other is continual access.
To what, exactly? The answer to that question matters quite a bit.
Or the administration could ask congress to pass a law to this effect. Like we used to do back during normal Republic times. Could have done that with the tariffs and then they'd have been legal.
Tariffs, deportations, attacks on drug boats, wars... almost all of the illegal shit the Trump administration has done could easily have been made legal by the GOP-controlled Congress. Early on in Trump 2.0 I wrote several letters to my very MAGA Senator, Mike Lee, begging him to sponsor and support legislation to do exactly that. Not because I thought the things Trump wanted to do were good but because I saw huge potential harm to the Republic if Congress just allowed the executive to flout the law.
Of course, Lee never responded to me. At all. And never lifted a finger to provide actual authorization for Trump's lawbreaking -- and, of course, Trump never asked the GOP Congress to do it.
The only reasonable conclusion is that Trump and the GOP (and SCOTUS) don't want the president to be constrained by law, and so Trump is deliberately doing all of this without Congressional approval in order to firmly establish the precedent that he doesn't need Congressional approval. He's doing the same thing now with the Iran war, having run out the 60-day clock but refusing even to ask Congress to authorize him to continue. GOP leadership is waffling, making up stuff (not found in the law!) about how the 60-day clock "stops" during a temporary ceasefire.
The truth is that Trump wants to be King, and the GOP wants him to be King. If Mike Johnson and John Thune wanted to, they could make Trump's actions lawful, but they want him to be able to ignore the law.
Yes, but some things are universally inappropriate. The sexualization of minors, letting minors consume things that cause developmental problems, giving adults the opportunity to f-k them...
Sure, and for those really severe issues we draw hard lines in somewhat arbitrary places, based on broad averages. And for some of them we also don't get too aggressive about parents who transgress the rules in small ways -- for example, if you let your 15 year-old son have a beer on a fishing trip you're technically committing a crime but no one is going to prosecute you. The same is true for helping a kid to bypass age checks to access social media or whatever.
The government could, in theory, pay child psychologists, to gather information about the child, perform interviews and analyses and produce a recommendation/strategy...
I cannot think of anything more dystopian.
You lack imagination, then. And, how would this be any different from school counselors and similar who regularly do these same sorts of things, though typically with a focus on education rather than, say, maturity for social media use?
I think it's great. I've been hoping the AI industry would crash in a firey heap for a year now so I could finally afford some fucking RAM again. Nothing will kill it faster than locking it behind some Orwellian process of approvals by turbo ideological partisans. The whole industry will shit the bed and die and we might get some of our RAM chips and SSDs back again
They don't really. Any debris caused by Starlink are likely short lived enough that crap in the orbit will be gone by the time a replacement is launched. Also Starlink doesn't need every orbit to get complete coverage so losing a bunch is meaningless. In fact they lose on average a satellite or two *every single day* without coverage being affected. Literally several hundred satellites deorbit from their constellation every year.
SpaceX could replace them faster than Russia could take them out. That would be a war of launch capacity and cadence, and SpaceX outlaunches the rest of the world combined.
The chances that a parent has the same access to child psychologists, researchers, teacher's associations, and any other groups necessary to determine the child's best interests is laughable.
OTOH, child-rearing is incredibly context-dependent. Every child is different and judgment needs to be applied to determine what is appropriate. The government certainly doesn't have the same awareness of the child's situation and needs as the parent. The government could, in theory, pay child psychologists, to gather information about the child, perform interviews and analyses and produce a recommendation/strategy, but that would be prohibitively expensive.
While that's a good suggestion, learning something well that's in the minority means he may have to learn a second thing well if he wants to move on professionally--that's double the effort.
(a) it's definitely not double the effort. I haven't looked at them, but they're guaranteed to have a lot of conceptual similarities.
(b) The differences are likely to be highly educational. Seeing how different engines approach similar problems will help him to understand the range of possibilities. Even better would be to learn something of the underlying theory and maybe build a (toy) engine himself to really understand.
If you're a software developer, have you learned only a single language? Do you think learning additional languages helped or hurt your ability to develop software? My own experience is that seeing a variety of approaches to a given problem has always made me better.
I think it makes perfect sense for a parent to help bypass age restrictions in this case... but I also think it makes a lot of sense to steer them to the open source tool.
Only people who are sensible enough to shun social media should be allowed to join it.
Especially slashdot!
A continuing flow of paper is sufficient to continue the flow of paper. -- Dyer
