Ok. The founding fathers didn't want the President of the United States to have ANY POWERS to make any decisions inside the country. The goal was for the President to merely be the administrative head to enforce laws Congress pass, and its only check on Congress was the veto power. The President also served as a Commander in Chief and had the power to sign treaties with foreign governments, but those powers were meant to be EXTREMELY limited, as they gave only Congress the power to declare war, and Congress was required to ratify any treaties with foreign governments.

If the President has the power to make ANY DECISIONS WHATSOEVER, instead of enforcing decisions those in congress have made, then it's not the role the founding fathers wanted.

They also wanted the executive to be very neutral. Many of them were against the concept of political parties, but that turned out to be inevitable. However, up until the 12th amendment, the vice-president was the runner up, whoever got the second-most votes by the electoral college. So, under that system, Hillary would have been Trump's VP his first term, and Harris would have been Trump's VP his second term. Because they wanted to ensure a check even within the executive, with someone with different views being the one to break ties in the senate.

I don't hate Trump. I pity him. No matter how much shit he slaps his name on, it won't fill the hole is daddy left in him. But people that damaged shouldn't be let anywhere near power.

Zenith, Motorola (Quasar), Admiral, RCA, GE televisions in the United States. (worked on them in the 70's), but then along came the Japanese TV's in the late 70's early 80's and along with the cheaper labor, and solid state televisions and cheaper prices, the American television industry collapsed. Now, the Japanese television industry is going through the same thing. The Chinese, with their massive cheap labor, ability to reverse engineer other things, has pretty much taken over the television set industry.

Well, no. It's true you can't buy books for the purposes of scanning them *and then making them available online* (Hachette v. Internet Archive). Scanning them for AI training is not settled law in every Federal District, although in at least one that has been ruled transformative and therefore allowable (Bartz v Anthropic, Northern District of California).

Anthropic famously bought a lot of copyrighted books and scanned them to ingest into its model training corpus. Arguably they aren't violating copyright because what they are doing is *transformative* -- turning words into a statistical map of word associations.

But what China is doing by inferring the structure of that map doesn't touch on *any* kind of intellectual property of Anthropics. Sure, the map is a trade secret, but they've exposed that trade secret through their public interface. It's not human created so it's not copyrightable. Even if that map were patentable, which it probably isn't, it's not patented.

The worst you can say is that China is violating the service's terms of service, which may have no legal force there.

As a lifelong cyclist, I agree in principle. The problem is over the last seventy-five years we have rearchitected the very geographic fabric of society to make *solving* our transportation problems with bike and public transit impossible.

Before WW2, Dad would leave the apartment and walk or take a trolley to work (usually in the same city neighborhood) while Ma "kept house" -- managed cooking, clearning, childcare, and the family's community and social engagement. In the 1950s and 60s, instead of an apartment, it'd be a suburban house. Ma would drop Pa off at the kiss and ride.

Today Mom and Dad both have jobs they have to get to, usually in *different* suburban employment areas; they can locate to make the commute easy for one, but they keep changing jobs every couple of years while their long-term wealth is being put into a geographically fixed asset: their house. They are financially anchored to their house as their jobs move around the region.

Car-dependency is baked into the very fabric of society, in a way you can't fix with transportation policy or projects--not without decades of projects. But we have reached the limits of the car-dependency model; we can't fix traffic by adding marginal car capacity as has been repeatedly demonstrated by freeway projects that fail to fix traffic because we're in an equillibrium between commute times and job selection.

Transit and bike infrastructure won't fix this, but they *can* make marginal improvements in the traffic situation by taking cars off the road for the minority of people who can use these alternatives at this particular point in their lives. I think e-bikes are going to be key. I personally wouldn't consider a ten mile commute by bike on roads shared with cars a barrier to commuting by bike, but most people wouldn't attempt it. E-bikes on bike infrastructure can make a ten mile commute practical for *normal* people, and take a significant number of cars off congested roads. Public transit could help, but again in a marginal, opportunistic way. In Europe or the US Northeast where car-dependency was overlaid on existing dense urban fabrics, there's a lot of opportunity for major transit projects. But for American cities in the West which have *no* center of mass to build around, solving car-dependency is likely a Moon-shot level project.

Should Job-Seekers Stop Using AI to Write Their Resumes?
If they are to be expected to use AI in their jobs ( which is invariably going to be the case ) - shouldnt Job Seekers demonstrate an aptitude for using it ?
Cant have it both ways....

What about all the coal, oil, gas used to generate the electricity, not to mention the TONS of material needed to create the batteries for wind/solar & the disposal costs?

Their current ARR growth disputes your statement. https://www.saastr.com/anthrop...

Also, simple logic disputes your statement. $200 / month is total peanuts compared to a human.

They could charge $5000 / month or higher for Claude Code Max and businesses would still pay for it, that is how good it is.

Your statement illustrates a misunderstanding of what HIPAA even requires.

HIPPA is not a compliance program. It is a law and set of regulations. There is no such thing as a way to "certify" software as being "HIPAA Compliant" because it is a meaningless term.

To be "HIPAA compliant", the entire software + solution stack needs to comply with the regulations.

In this case, he most likely made a dashboard that redacted PII from the eyes of consumers except on a need-to-know basis - because that is the heart of HIPAA. There is no need to inspect the code to illustrate this kind of "compliance", you look at the solution and what it provides.

Well, that's one hypothesis. However since they saw a significant difference in the population where the social media apps were removed, then if your hypothesis is true, the data would suggest that delivering the service as a native app rather than a web app must have some harmful effect in itself. An alternative hypothesis is that their application usage patterns changed when the apps were removed.

It's not altogether far fetched that web-delivered apps have a different psychological effect than native smartphone apps, because native smartphone apps have greater access to the system for tracking and notifications. Native apps also offer different features than their web versions. This is why I use Facebook via a browser, because the Facebook native app is insufferably intrusive, constantly trying to get your attention. It means, however, I can't use Facebook's chat function.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

> "Good enough" is exactly the reason that AI is upending the world of white collar work. It might not replace a skilled and experienced employee, but it's good enough.

I don't necessarily have a problem with that. The problem is, skilled workers only become skilled after being inexperienced for a while and gaining experience. If you cut junior, unskilled workers from the job market, you won't have skilled workers in a few years.

In other words, company that adopt AI to avoid paying unskilled labor are shooting themselves in the foot.

You have to pay MORE. /s

Whether you like AI or not, if your profession is about to be obsoleted by AI, AI Is factually bad for you.

Beyond that, it's up to you to decide if it's worth paying a talented human writer to report on local events in a local rag. Most of those newspapers are strictly utilitarian and simply inform the locals of what's happening in their communities. I've never seen any of them dabble in gonzo.

And well, journalism is like football: most professional footballers play in minor leagues and don't earn much, and only a vanishingly small minority earns top dollar playing incredible matches watched by millions.

High-flying journalists writing for classy newspapers will most certainly keep writing their own stuff. But the mundane will probably be taken over by AI because mediocre is good enough for the money.