Consider:

Traffic stop. Officer is making 'small talk'. "Where ya goin?". Where ya comin from?".

These are generally not 'small talk'. They are fishing questions, cop asking for info that could lead to suspicion, and detention while they dig for more.

And these sorts of questions can generally be answered by, simply, "None of your business, officer".

Every subsequent question, such as "I'm just making small talk", or "Hey, no big deal", or "What's the problem, you have something to hide?" are all just follow up fishing questions. And deserve no answer.

During a traffic stop, Flock gives officers information they would normally be lawfully denied, like "Where ya coming from?". Flock sidesteps your right to constitutionally refuse such information (and in the absence of reasonably articulable suspicion or other evidence, during a traffic stop, denies the officer the right to demand such information) and as such is a blight on constitutional protections. Flock must be better controlled, or abandoned.

And officers using Flock to look up the plates of their ex, former landlord, or the random guy who gave them a dirty look at a stop light are plainly violating these individuals' rights, and must be sanctioned. And the supervision of the abuses systems similarly sanctioned. Meaningful sanctions, every incident.

The Government rarely surrenders access to information. They seek power at every opportunity. In America, only the Constitution, and adherence to law, can nominally restrict this.

We need a book that explains how AI technology functions.

There is a huge amount of news and comments, but apparently nothing that helps people understand how AI is developed, and functions.

Around 2029 we'll see that a ride is available for $16 or $31 with a driver.

Rider's choice. I'll guess it goes about 80/20.

He seems like a real scumbag but it's worth keeping in mind that the people who told us that have a massive incentive to pin their crimes on a scapegoat.

Since we pretty much know that FTX was the #1 donor to a party's political action committee with money laundered through Ukraine, he would have been smarter to wait for that conflict to conclude.

The people who benefited from the crime also prosecuted him which is never reliable.

It might not be FedSlop but unless it is proven that both parties didn't benefit we shouldn't trust this government either.

We do know that Ladybug Graham got $18M straight into his bank account from Ukraine so there is certainly smoke.

It's only since a dead man can't sue for libel that people are willing to print that nugget now.

Not in a Corporate Democracy.

The people who would prosecute OpenAI want to use OpenAI to maximize their power and wealth at your financial and legal expense.

Remember when they tried to extradite Gary McKinnon for twenty years for looking at a spreadsheet when he accidentally got RDP access to an unsecured NASA desktop with a simple Perl script? Intent is not relevant for prosecutors (mens rea should be an element in a Constitutional case).

The legal basis is there but the will to power is not.

Two systems of courts for different classes of people (yet again). It would be an error to call that a Justice System.

n.b. the Culture War psyop is there to try to convince you that the classes are something else.

There are corrections to gravity that include the current size of the Universe as s term that gives extremely small differences in calculations but explains most observations.

It has a certain allure from an Information Theory perspective and is extremely parsimonious in ask.

But funding is for finding wimps and axons and evidence of mysteries that use the old equations so you are called crazy if your simple theory threatens that gravy train.

Some people say useful physics is too dangerous to fund and we're better off wasting time and money.

Twenty years ago Dark Energy seemed like a good idea to me. So did Supersymmetry. Most new ideas that can be tested and used or disproved probably should be. That LHC found no Supersymmetric pairs is a good thing.

Apologies to the original.

https://eev.ee/blog/2012/04/09...

According to a report I heard yesterday Talarico has 50x the cash of Paxton and it's the Bush politicial machine that is funding him.

The situation was similar in the primary but the base favored Paxton over Cornin by such a huge margin that the spend didn't matter.

The dual state people hate Paxton so much they have been after him for years.

It's populists vs. oligarchs in most races where party affiliation is a distant second to the money machine.

Since Trump ran on populism but then did a 180 with Judas knives out for his "former supporters" the odds of any Republican getting elected anywhere but an R+20 are extremely thin regardless of warchest.

DC's interference in free elections is gross but it probably won't matter on Election Day.

Impeachments of officials over FCC actions are quite likely at this point.

"You're folding it wrong," obviously.

Perhaps Tim Apple had the sense to get out ahead of this.

Happy to be proven wrong! That would be amazing engineering and might actually allow the rollable Global to come to fruition.

But since everybody who has claimed to have perfected the engineering hasn't actually done so one should be cautious on such investments.

"For an assignment testing students' ability to make evidence-based arguments, they participate in a simulated school board meeting about banning books. It involves debating chatbots designed by Zeleny with names like the Confrontational Parent."

This a VERY thinly veiled parallel to a hotly divided political issue that teachers/unions [and chatbot trained bias] tend be on one side of and the majority of the public, parents, and truth on the opposite of. Given that adults of the highest levels of performance in our society, be it professional achievement, economic achievement, political achievement, IQ, and education disagree on the matter it sounds like what the teacher is likely testing is alignment with her own ideology and not evidence-based arguments.

I saw the same thing in many of my own courses, examples and material used in classes [especially logic classes like critical thinking] that taught and test concepts through distilled 'analogs' to popular political issues with an attempt to appear neutral and present both sides while actually presenting a weakened strawman of one side the argument and consistently that strawman was on the same side. Cleverly these were not the topics for essays where students spent effort on time and research and independent thought but the class examples that most would never look at additional material on... simply walk away believing they formed a valid independent judgement at the pinnacle of their own education.

That is not making it better...