In the 70s and 80s, the threat from a handful of countries was: "We can destroy everything". With developments in Russia, Ukraine, Iran and now China, the new doctrine is: "We can destroy anything"... and that's not just from a few large states, but potentially other actors who are both willing to send these things, and do not greatly have to fear retaliation.

That is covered by the "providing false or misleading information" clause. In other countries it might be considered "destruction of or tampering with evidence". Around here, you can't be compelled to provide passwords to your personal devices, but providing a burn-down pin or otherwise deleting information after the police have asked for it, is a crime.

As for Touch ID or Face ID: in many places you can be compelled to unlock your phone with your fingerprint, or they can simply hold it up to your face in case of Face ID. Most phones have a shortcut to lock out biometrics and revert to password/PIN only, comes in handy if you're stopped by police and you suspect it's not just a traffic stop. (On iPhones it's 5 clicks of the side button. That also starts a call to 911 / 112 so make sure to cancel that).

One of the lessons we've had as the Federal, multi-branch nature of the US governmennt has frustrated Trump is that the government may be fucking us over, but it's not doing it in *unison*. It's doing it piecemiel, on the initiative of many interests working against each other, just as the framers intended. The motto on the Great Seal notwithstanding, there are myriad roadblocks to consolidating power in the hands of a single individual. It takes time and repeated failures. This is why the second Trump Adminsitration is worse than the first; they've figured out ways around things like Congressional power of the purse, put more of their henchmen in the judiciary, and normalized Congress lying down and letting the president walk all over them. It's a serious situation, although fortunately Trump isn't long for this world.

I think it's fine if artists use generative AI like this to spruce up their graphics, as long as the end result is good. One problem is: nVidia envision this as a post-processing step, a reshader... that is only available on nVidia cards. Leaving those with Intel or AMD cards with a game that looks like crap. And I am sure nVidia can make a couple of deals with a few studios to use this tech.

If they're in port and he takes runs around the neighborhood, he might make himself a target. Didn't a few Russian officers get nailed by partisans after posting their regular morning runs on Strava (or a similar app)?

Most armed forces ban the app for good reason.

While that's true, a responsible generation aims to boost the next generation to a *higher* level than the education they received. The world has become more complex and faster-paced, and even if that weren't true, the consequenes of aiming high and falling short are better than the consequences of aiming for the status quo and falling short.

So while I'm 100% onboard with skepticism that technology will magically make education better, I think the argument that "the education I got worked for me should be good for them" isn't a strong argument. What we need is a better ecducation that would have been a better education fifty years ago: stronger math, science, and language skills, general knowledge, and, I think critical thinking and media literacy. Possibly emotional intelligence -- it's kind of pointless to teach people critcial thinking skills if they are carried away by emotions.

We grew up better without them, and some of the kids recognize that (here in Europe we've had similar experimental bans as well). When asked, one notable point some kids made was that they felt more carefree, secure in knowing that an embarrassing misstep or misspoken word is not going to be filmed to haunt you for the rest of the year.

There are no economic or security reasons to blockade Cuba, so that leaves *political*.

It used to be believed that bullies were low status individuals who are lashing out out of frustration. But research has shown that bullying is an effective strategy for achieving and maintaining social status. In other words it's a political winner. So the focus of research has shifted from the bully to the people around him who enable the bullying. The inner circle are the henchmen -- people without the charisma and daring to initiate the bullying, but join in when the bully gets things started. Around them are the audience, the people who wouldn't risk participating but enjoy the bullying vicariously. And around them are the much larger group of bystanders, who don't approve but are waiting for someone else to stop the bullying. Then off to the side are the defenders, who stand up to the bully.

Perhaps the least appreciated supporting factor in the phenomenon of the high-status bully is the silence of the bystanders, which is dependent upon the perception of widespread approval. Since you can't visibly see the the line between the approving audience and the apalled bystanders, the silence of the bytstanders is absolutely essential in sustaining the bullying.

Lot's of Americans are apalled at the idea of using military force to inflict suffering on the Cuban people. But that's only politically advantageous *because* of *them*. Tney are indistinguishable from the relatively small number of people who are thrilled when Trump announced he can do anything he wants wtih Cuba. The gap between actual approval and *perceived* approval is absolutely critical in establishign and maintaining any kind of authoritarianism. This is why would be authoritarian leaders are so focused on punishing and marginalizing any kind of expression of disapproval.

The CEO of Micron was equally explicit about discontinuing the Crucial brand of computer memory: "Micron has made the difficult decision to exit the Crucial consumer business in order to improve supply and support for our larger, strategic customers in faster-growing segments"

Some aircraft already offer an emergency system that, when activated, guides the aircraft to the nearest airfield, makes radio calls along the way, and lands the plane. It has been used successfully in actual emergencies a few times.

Maybe because it'll be a jury who decides what is real and what isn't, and who is liable. Somehow I don;t think that will lead to a lot of good verdicts.

You went after traffickers of cannabis... until it was made legal. By the same token, you can go after those who are pumping, peddling and burning fossil fuels... after you have made it illegal to do so.

Even if all of that were true, oil companies are still not solely to blame for it all. And what would be the point in suing them?
Also, there's no justice in it. It's not like they were doing anything illegal. All of us can take some responsibility ourselves for this mess, instead of trying to find an easy target to blame it all on and extract an easy buck from them.

The real question is: is the output of an LLM trained on his work really a derivative work? If I read the book and use what I learned from it in my (paid) work, maybe even quoting from it, does that constitute a derivative work? Or did I just violate the terms "use of the work for any purpose without payment"? Neither part seems legally enforceable.

"specialized robots with productive jobs that bring abundance to their owners" In other words, to his company. The companies developing fully autonomous vehicles figured that out almost as soon as they set up business: why sell these things if you can rent them out and keep extracting fees from the users? If humans have been made redundant at last,. why keep billions of them around?