I continue to fail to see how you reach certain conclusions, but I don’t see any value in pursuing this discussion further. Apparently based on our individual experiences that seem to have lead to or exacerbated some biases, it seems that we see things so differently that I can’t even tell whether you are or believe that you are arguing in good faith. To be clear, I am not on the opposite side of some debate with you; I am not in favor of riots, defunding police forces, or anarchy. I continue to assert that you have not provided sufficient evidence to support your original claim. I could give four concrete examples from my personal experience that directly conflict with your perspective but not a single example of an officer helping me. That does not mean that officers don’t help or intend to help, I just question the ratio of their motivation. I don’t believe that my experiences are unique and there are constant reports of various forms of abuse by police. Probing further, I believe you have made additional invalid points that I don’t care to refute, especially as neither of us is able to prove anything about almost any perspectives expressed here. We simply disagree to the point that we apparently find each other’s statements to be nonsensical.

Didn't Biden lie about intentionally letting in 20M illegal aliens without background checks, and without even counting them, and claiming had no way of stopping them anyway? Just before Trump did it on his first day?

How about the thousands of lies Democrats have pumped out over the last 13 years about Trump? Have you ever visited the propaganda factories that are Reddit, MSNBC, or Vox?

Yeah, politicians and their media allies lie when their mouths are open. Trump can never tell enough lies to catch up to the left.

Again, the training materials are irrelevant to the motivational outcome evidenced by officer behaviors. Repeating your statements and swearing does not support your argument. In fact, I believe that these tactics work against you in the general public eye. Swearing is evidence of a loss of control, often due to frustration, where frustration is often part of learning. Argumentum ad naseum leaves the impression that you don't have better supporting arguments. I read your comments the first time and there's no point repeating them, except maybe for your other readers, as you stated.

That being said, you have not effectively countered any of my arguments or evidence, nor your new claim that any officer action that doesn’t align with your perspective is an outlier. I am not referring only to my personal beliefs. I am referring to my experiences with officers as well as evidence available to the general public that contradicts your statement that “officers do generally want to help people", which is supported by common reports of police misbehavior, my personal experiences with officers, and research such as the Stanford Prison Experiment. You also used the weasel word "generally". That being said, you have achieved your goal of argumentum ad nauseam/infinitum, as I do not care to participate in this particular exchange any further, as you provide no new facts or evidence.

> And the police and military include the concept of illegal orders into their training as a result.

I’m curious if you think the military always follows only “legal” orders, or if any illegal orders have been followed by the military in recent years (for example, attacking boats around South America, or specific actions such as apparently targeting a girls’ schools and wedding in the current Iran conflict, as well as attacking non-military equipment such as oil facilities, and of course destroying clearly civilian resources as well). Even if there is evidence of drug trafficking on these boats, that does justify the USA murdering all on board, especially the double-tap event. The capture of Maduro is also questionable, as are the assassinations of leaders in Iran. Or are contractors (merceneries) and USA TLAs allowed to carry out what would be illegal orders to the military?

> I could do a proper debate, its just that slashdot is not a venue worth much time.

Note that your posts on this site and in this thread often do not evidence this supposed belief of yours.

But I completely agree with you; I mostly waste time here for the entertainment value (I do like to argue!), not because I expect to actually influence someone’s perspective, especially one such as yours or anyone agreeing with your comments. In reading, I am mostly here to learn, but it is frustrating to see falsehoods and illogical arguments. We should all simply stop responding to the rage baiting on both sides, as it only sharpens divides. For this reason, I try to discuss logic and critical thinking rather than using bad faith argumentation tactics, spreading falsehoods, insulting people (though sometimes I have something like Keyboard Tourette Syndrom).

> my comments are sometimes oriented to the more rational reader that is not actually speaking up.

I have the same objectives as well, but maybe confirmation bias applies in any case where anyone agrees with either of us. And I really doubt that either of us is convincing anyone that doesn’t already agree with us to change their perspective. Basically, we’re all just shouting into the social media void to egotistically hear the sound of our own voices, thinking that we may actually be reaching a wider audience. I don’t have anything to go on other than what I’ve read, seen, or experienced myself, which does not support your conclusion.

My point was that cadet training materials are not evidence in support of your assertions that officers generally want to help people. Instead of countering my argument, you simply repeat yourself and then make another unsubstantiated claim ("Its not a career you go into otherwise."). This appears to others as argumentum ad nauseam/infinitum)

Additionally, an individual's reasons to chose a career do not necessarily dictate motivations behind behaviors afterwards. Also, I would suggest that most people chose careers for multiple reasons, not a single reason. Police have a well-documented history of supporting each other over the public at large, which my personal experiences confirm. Consider also studies such as the Stanford Prison Experiment - people given undue power over others often gravitate towards its abuse.

Every time you I see you in discussion, your arguments don't appear to be logical and you don't accept when others point out facts and make logical arguments that counter your statements. If you actually believe the things that you write, it might be in your best interest to question some of them when others point out your bad faith arguments, flawed logic, and clear falsehoods. This could improve your debate skills. It would probably be even better to admit such errors to others, which would increase your potential credibility.

If you cared about the little guy, you'd oppose a union that's going to accelerate them losing their jobs.

The future is EVs and driverless cars. Tesla's cabs are $~8 per ride, not even half that of an Uber, and you don't have to tip them!

Who is gonna want to to pay for an Uber when they top $30 per 15 minute ride to pay for union demands, or the company becomes so inflexible they can't make changes without union permission?

Police training programs are not actual evidence of anything that would support your argument that officers generally want to help people. Training programs and police policies dictate neither officer thoughts nor actions. For example, pilots are taught not to crash planes, and there are policies requiring go-arounds, but a pilot recently crashed a cargo plane in violation of both. Goals != outcomes.

> officers do generally want to help people

Citation needed. This has absolutely never been my experience more than ten interactions with different police officers. They're there for the money and the power and to protect each other first, whatever that takes.

Have your head examined, please.

When they start demanding higher wages, they'll ensure their own demise at the hands of driverless cars. Probably whey this got through a state congress so notoriously hostile to the little guy.

I definitely agree that “AI” is extremely valuable for coding, but it takes a qualified person or team to oversee it. I certainly don’t believe in vibe coding or complete app generation. Along with preliminary architectural advice (sparring partner), I would tend to use it for relatively small pieces with direct oversight by a developer. The prompting here is critical.

One concern is that “AI” could actually lower the sale value of software, which could become more of a commodity or even something where people without any background can build their own applications. This would seem to work against any vendors using these systems, reducing their profitability and hence their ability to invest more in “AI”. Microsoft and Google could be the winners here, as their other product lines generate revenue (and data) that could support further AI investments. Anthropic and OpenAI don’t have those other product lines, and I don’t even care to give a stink about SpaceX AI. Another concern is that without that qualified person or team, software generated by “AI” could have serious security and other defects.

Maybe a bigger issue is that software development is only a fraction of the market that these systems claimed they would soon dominate. That complete addressable market is what investors thought would support the data center investments and potential high valuations. Even if they could address that market, the investments only really makes sense if there is little competition, which would basically mean a single cloud vendor and not much use of local models. That doesn’t seem to be the trend, and again works against Anthropic.

I don’t claim to be an expert on any of this; just opinions. In my experience, business strategy along with sales and marketing tends to be as important or possibly more important than product.

> It remains to be seen if even using their models can be profitable

Whether or not he stated the reason for the slowdown honestly (which don't think anyone should believe, and even the Coxon departure could have been staged), then one concern is that use of AI (cloud providers, specific models) might only be profitable or be maximally profitable only for bad actors, for example hacking systems for financial gain or other purposes.

The much more likely explanation seems to be that they can't deliver on expectations they've marketed, resulting i potential investor lawsuits, and that they could be held responsible for what their software does or what others do with it, and that they don't have a viable business model in any forseable circumstances (especially considering models that run locally) and can't keep the required chips completely off the reasonable market forever, especially to support trillion-dollar valuation. In other words, they may have missed their IPO opportunity, and this may even be some attempt to get it back.

So their claim is they don't "continuously" record and send your conversations back to the CCP?

Good, that would have been completely different. /s

This message brought to you by the CCP.

Love that clip! Unfortunately the "the world is sinking" crowd still adamantly refuses to build boats.

If everything is expanding at the same rate, it's the only possible conclusion. If it really were a 'bang' (an explosion with a single source) acceleration would be slower the further away from the source of the bang. And it's not.

Every point in the universe is expanding away from every other point, at the same rate. That means the source of the expansion is in the empty space between us, and there is no way to detect the center of the universe this way.