The big problem with AI as I see it is you have to tell it very specifically what you want. Leaders often know the outcome they want but not how to get there. AI can weigh pros and cons if you give it a comprehensive list, but it can't replace the experience gained over years and help identify blind spots to keep leadership out of trouble. I think it probably will take place in some companies. Within 6 months after several bad decisions based on AI the board is going to say "this isn't working out" try to hire back staff again and likely run into some very tough problems. Potential candidates will know what your previous staff was worth to you. Would you want to plant your flag there? In my view this winds up being a very big stumbling block for the companies that adopt the idea completely. It's fine to use AI to make workers more efficient and provide better answers, but wholesale replacement? From what I've seen we're a long way from there yet. And Andrew Yang lives in a beautiful fantasy of his own making. The rich don't want to take care of the poor now. But they're going to be on board with UBI for 90% of the workforce? I sincerely doubt that. If you look at all those people pushing it they're the wealthy who will never have to rely on their little experiment. All one needs to do is look at welfare, the projects, and all of the other "assistance" the government provides. Sure it's helpful to those who need it, but it's broadly abused and doesn't fully meet the need. UBI would be that on steroids.

The studios would have to agree to it. I'm not sure why they'd do that. It's not in their best interests. On the positive side it will leave a lot more time for self important celebrities to get out into the world and physically contribute to the causes they care so much about. I'm looking forward to seeing well known faces downtown feeding the homeless and caring for the elderly. Risking their lives in foreign countries to take care of the disadvantaged people there. It will be very inspiring.

I like art. I like artists. I buy things from the artists that make things I like. Commercial viability? I tend to enjoy the things that are less commercial. So yes, the ones I like in particular would probably benefit from this. But I have to ask what makes it the government's responsibility to use tax dollars to support things that aren't commercially viable and don't return any value on investment? Most of the artists operating in that realm are not doing so to make a living. They love what they do. Most of them work a normal job. I feel like this is how it should work. And much like welfare the amount we're talking about isn't even enough to survive. Just another way of creating government dependance at the expense of the taxpayer.

Yes, but Trump is saying it, so obviously the left doesn't like it. This makes it misinformation and the only ones we should listen to are the multibillion dollar conglomerates who profit by keeping us sick.

The signal to noise ration has been generally declining on YouTube for a while now. There's a lot of garbage out there. I also watch in the evenings to fall asleep. Danny Sapko had a funny one yesterday "I didn't want to make this video" Which perfectly captures the growing click bait nature from some creators. Finding good accurate history has always been difficult and full of what facts to include as well as leave out to make a particular point. Now with AI I fear after a while there will be no history because it will be lost in the mud of stuff like this.

I'm not sure about that. I just got done investing about $20k in solar and batteries for my cabin, and then $21k to get it connected to the local cooperative. I'm finding it would be more advantageous to mine crypto currency then to sell back to the coop at $0.04 /kwh + the liability insurance I have to carry.

In theory, but in practice, we help them and they still shout death to America in the streets. And all the people who are so worried about ending USAID certainly have the option of reaching into their own pockets to help. If indeed helping is the real inclination. Personally I'm kind of tired of watching our tax dollars disappear into a void with no accountability.

Makes total sense. Don't change your CD, or radio. No eating a burger or drinking Starbucks either. Don't touch your nav in the center console either. No adjusting your AC. Just drive. I'm so glad I don't live there anymore.

Let's vote on it next election. Who thinks we should keep the IRS? Don't keep repeating the BS about roads and infrastructure. Go look at how they actually spend our money. Then decide. Is funding gender studies in Pakistan really what you'd like them to spend your money on?

They are, but we'll never do business with them again. Not sure they care but if enough people take that stance in aggregate maybe it makes a difference long term.

Wonder if they've ever heard of an annoying little company called SCO?

I'd hesitate to call them victims. Victim has a connotation of doing nothing wrong. In this case it sounds like they volunteered to be compromised. Not to minimize the dangerousness of what he did, but on what planet do you fire someone and not revoke their access? To me Disney is even more responsible than he is. If they'd done their job it wouldn't have even been possible.

Chuck U. Farley 1234 Yermom Nowhereland, CA 91324 818-867-5309 Hopefully that makes it easier for them.

Or just don't murder 4 people in cold blood. That's an option too.

Well not quite. The court did not dismiss the case. So they may know something you don't. They also refused to take the death penalty off the table. It could have something to do with it being fairly obvious that he did it. He was a PhD student in criminology and has been quite smug thinking he's committed a murder he's going to get away with. There's also the factor that it was not the prosecutors office that did the DNA match. That was the FBI and they had authorization.