Well anyways we can argue meme or not meme. But objectively, this incident shows that this administration will publish unlabeled false/modified information to further its political ends. This is a 100% clear example of that. So that must be the presumption with the Trump administration.

I don't think they did it to win the case. It's political. They did it to create propaganda for the consumption of their supporters, touting their heroic actions to protect religion against a 'far left agitator' (who just happens to appear very dark-skinned and ugly and unstable):

https://x.com/WhiteHouse/statu...

But you didn't mention the important point of energy conservation / efficiency:

https://www.researchgate.net/f...

This graph could be more up-to-date (2016) but it already shows the EU having rising per capita on a falling amount of energy per capita, and steeply declining energy consumption per $1K of GDP.

No kind of energy generation is going to beat not having to generate it at all.

Perhaps they also have decreasing industrial output in energy-intensive products, but the rising GDP per capita and declining energy consumption per GDP show that even if that is true they are more than replacing it with more productive enterprises.

US is 2.5x of Canada. What surprises me more is the UK was almost right there with the US, and the EU as a whole wasn't all that low. Japan is probably the lowest of nations you would actually trust to keep statistics on it.

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

It's just building up a narrative with one series of studies ("sitting has a surprising link to poor brain health!") and then tearing it down ("except active sitting!") all just to get back where you started (you get worse at thinking if you never do it).

It happens all the time, somebody does some eyecatching behavioral study and it makes the rounds as the next new fascinating thing that 'science' has discovered, and then subsequent studies fail to replicate or find it was only true for a certain subpopulation that's kind of obvious, etc.

You're mis-reading it. It's not saying the US has the lead in self-driving, it's saying Waymo has the lead in the US - and by implication not so much in the rest of the world. As it states:

As U.S. competition has lagged, Waymoâ(TM)s planned 2026 expansions could lock in rider demand and loyalty in the U.S....

The Alphabet company faces its most formidable competition from Baidu-owned Apollo Go and WeRide in Asia, but Amazonâ(TM)s Zoox and Elon Muskâ(TM)s Tesla, along with startups like May Mobility and Nuro, are aiming to compete with Waymo in North America.

I remember when DARPA's Policy Analysis Market (a.k.a. 'terrorism futures market') was being prototyped, eliciting insider information was touted as a potential benefit. Effectively, a way to bribe conspirators to leak their intentions, just like the Maduro example given in the summary. But, PAM was widely regarded as a scandal. Not only was it cancelled, but heads rolled at DARPA.

I am really surprised they settled, because it seems like any of hundreds of millions of other people could follow the exact same path to a payout.

As a kid I would always see these headlines about the astronomical amounts of TV consumed by the average American

In 1984, 84.9 million American households (98 percent of them) had television sets. They kept them in use 7 hours and 8 minutes a day, making television-watching far and away the most popular leisure-time activity ever.

https://www.csmonitor.com/1985...

Americans are watching an average of almost seven hours of television a day, according to the Nielsen Report on Television 1989 released today.

https://www.latimes.com/archiv...

I suppose getting personalized feedback on your content has made social media into an even better mousetrap, but this is hardly a new issue. And it still isn't fentanyl.

My nephew is a drone pilot for a "smart agriculture" company that uses aerial imagery to assess on a more detailed basis whether each acre is getting the right amount of everything.

We can argue whether that is "AI" but I say yes because it reduced the skill of flying an aircraft to the level that my nephew learned to do the human part, and automated imagery analysis is obviously cheaper than paying an army of imagery analysts to study crop photos.

Certainly the U.S. doesn't "need" mass immigration.

I am reading online all the time that the US would have no concerns with population decline if it just stopped being so racist and filled the gap with millions and millions of immigrants.

I had a typo, I meant telecommuting seems like a more direct challenge to the need for immigration than AI does. Not that telecommuting is a challege to AI.

I'd like to see a longer excerpt before assuming "these trends" (from the quote) actually equate to AI. If nothing else I'd think telecommuting across the globe was a more obvious challenge to AI, and outsourcing certainly has been a substantial issue for years now.

Ideally I agree with carbon tax. But the level of public trust in the calculating the credits simply isn't there. Every carbon credit scheme ends up getting pilloried by the left as well as the right, over issues like how many kg of CO2 is saved by protecting some acreage of rainforest, or 'subsidizing' evil rich corporations by letting them sell carbon credits, etc. etc.

Maybe, since the first copy of anything costs a fortune to develop. The engineering costs for the second will be vastly smaller, and the content production costs probably none (though the content licensing costs probably increase in proportion to audience size).

If they weren't going to pivot to ads or fees at some point, what did people think they were going to do? Yes, businesses use investment to build up to profitability or to be sold to a big fish. Why does everybody in here see that as some evil conspiracy?