Why would Hegseth do that? Anthropic has the best "AI" in the world. Hegseth is not known as a deep thinker or strategist. He's going to get clobbered rhetorically and logically.
This blog entry has a "Written without generative AI" mini banner (sorry if that's not the jargon of the day). Every blogger should be doing that (if it's true).
You won't get far by using a slur in your name. Nobody likes being stereotyped and pigeonholed, "AI" included. Maybe abject failure will teach you a lesson.
This is a great post. It's even got useful ternary diagrams, and it gives an explanation of why the NFT grift disappeared. Too bad cryptocurrency in general is only mentioned in the context of rug pulls. This theory must not extend as far as whatever powers crypto.
Yes, it feels like another round of the same old tired "force everyone to use legal names online to save the children" that has been pushed continuously since the Internet driver's license of the 90s.
It will not save any children. It will destroy privacy, destroy free speech, and give lots of money to whatever corporation wins the bid for supplying the tech.
And of course, when that corporation gets hacked and all the personally identifiable information is put on the dark web, nobody will be held accountable.
Blizzard, the video game company, moved their forums from character name to legal name. I think it lasted a week or two before a ton of people got doxxed and they reverted.
Curiously, people doxx themselves. That is like the entire business model of plaintir, collect all the information people volunteer about themselves and others publicly, for free, to anyone that cares to look.
We seem to be at the bit where people liked having their cake and eating it too, until they had to pay for it. This is the part where the bill comes due.
And that is fucking _nothing_ compared to the massive, eye-watering amount of information people fucking pay to give away to an LLM company. sama must laugh himself to sleep every night.
I have no problem supplying my real name online - it's trivially attached to this account via my resume, and I use this account name all over. I also have several other account names, some disposable and some not.
There are plenty of reasons to be anonymous online. There's plenty of reasons not to be. I kind of wish that the government would launch a series of public political debate forums that required real ID, not that I think they would actually be valuable places for debate, but the technical challenges would be worthwhile to solve and the ability to publicly register debate positions would be incredibly useful for nailing politicians down.
The problem comes when the government tries to regulate one form or another, because strongly authenticated, pseudonymous, and anonymous forums all have their place in debate, and there's reasons for both public and private entities to host all three.
> I have no problem supplying my real name online - it's trivially attached to this account via my resume, and I use this account name all over. I also have several other account names, some disposable and some not.
You’re aware and made a choice, that’s good. Most people are not aware and have not elected to make this choice. This is a heavily-conversed topic on this and many other sites.
I don't think he cares either way. He knows that the government is going to crackdown on social media because the voters are tired of anarcho libertarian tech bro dipshits.
So he can either go down with the ship or bend with the wind. And Zuckerberg always knows how the wind blows.
Won't things fall apart at a lower unemployment rate? The Great Depression of he 1930s caused lower rates, and revolts almost occurred, we are told, only The New Deal saved things.
It'll probably be like other revolutions: the torch and pitchfork vendors will make a lot of money, one or two peasants strike it rich, the rest go home empty handed.
SCOTUS has a role in this too. I know folks are cheering on their decision yesterday BUT: Early on they effectively decided that inconveniencing the powerful (Trump) was worse than we the people being illegally taxed for a year and didn't do anything until later / let the case roll through the system. And now ... he's at it again.
His actions are entirely predictable, he has said he would do it, and it means that it SCOTUS sticks to their game plan that lead us to their last decision ... SCOTUS is not relevant and illegal taxes continue while new cases spin up and the SCOTUS majority folds its arms.
In the meantime as individuals who were illegally taxed, I doubt we see a dime back.
My understandung is that the US Supreme Court is a "passive judicial body". It cannot take the initiative and must wait until a case is put before it like is usual for a court.
The new 15% tariffs are apparently according to the 1974 Trade Act which allows the President to increase tariffs up to 15% for up to 150 days.
The Supreme Court can just make up its own rules. It made up its power of judicial review. Who's going to decide that they can't take initiative if they decide to?
“Passive” in the sense there’s no rule they can’t “actively” take bribes then make decisions to passively allow unconstitutional action by the other branches of the “checks and balances”
reply