Good riddance, though a plane crash seems like a relatively easy way to “kill” someone while they go into hiding.

Sure, as long as we also have a competency test for retirees as well.

I wonder who scores better?

Why would this be treated any differently than googling things? I just googled the same prompt about hiding food that’s mentioned in the article and it gave me pretty much the same advice. One of the top links was an ED support forum where they were advising each other on how to hide their eating disorder.

These articles are just outrage bait at this point. There are some legitimate concerns about AI, but bashing your hand with a hammer and blaming the hammer shouldn’t be one of them.

I don’t think so, his “X” idea has been around for a long time, he really thinks it’s his next big idea. I’m sure people have raised all of these concerns with him, but I doubt he’s listening. Tesla, SpaceX, etc. are ideas that he bought, this one is his baby. I don’t think he’s open to ideas or criticisms on it.

He bought the company to bootstrap his idea of his “X” app which he envisions becoming something like WeChat for the world outside of China.

I think it’s a terrible idea that’s a solution in search of s problem. WeChat works in China because the government literally enforces it’s usage. The rest of the world isn’t interested in a one-stop-shop for anything and everything.

It’s the problem of trying to be everything for everyone. You end up with mediocre or bad solutions for many problems instead of great solutions for a couple of problems. It works when there’s no competition, see WeChat, but when there is competition that competition is going to beat you at their game because you’re too busy playing a dozen others.

I’ve had Pixels since the first one, this is news to me.

Edit: Just went looking for it, not installed. It’s in the play store but not sure how it could be unavoidable when it’s not pre-installed.

In this case the article states Meta did not comply with the requests and responded to the FBI with concerns about the accounts being flagged. It also states that Meta was not pressured to comply with the requests.

I think this is a tricky situation. It’s in the interest of social media companies to limit the spread of misinformation on their platforms. When that misinformation is coming from state actors (e.g. Russia) it’s not uncommon for the US Government to have the best knowledge of those efforts. It follows that the social media company would want to consult with the US Government to improve their efforts. But the US Government obviously also has its own interests and biases that can very easily corrupt those efforts.

There has been cases (as pointed out in the last court case) where I think the government did cross the line from advisory to directive. I think that’s a problem that absolutely needs to be addressed.

IMO the answer to this is a bit of a one-way communication and transparency. The US Government should keep a publicly accessible database of what it believes to be misinformation efforts including posts, accounts, etc. Third parties can audit that DB and conduct their own reviews. It would then be up to them whether or not to use that information to aid their own efforts. The public can also review that information and they (and the media) can point out the flaws and mistakes they believe are being made.

I don’t think you solve one problem by introducing another problem. The solution to over-criminalization is to decriminalize things. If a person is a danger to society, charge them with a crime and let a jury of their peers decide their guilt. Hacking into someone’s property so that you can spy on them is absolutely not an alternative worth entertaining.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch would have dismissed the case because of the intervening North Carolina court action.

Was this the crux of their dissent, or did they disagree with the actual ruling in regards to the independent legislature theory? Having 3 justices endorse that theory would be alarming.

Happy this is settled for at least this iteration of the court. The idea that state legislatures can ignore their own state Constitution, that they themselves wrote, is absurd and paradoxical. Being bound by the state constitution isn’t giving or sharing power with the state courts, it’s a limitation placed on themselves by the state legislature.

This is just bizarre…what’s the goal here? Putin already declared their acts as treason, how can he let this go unpunished? Is the Russian state really so weak that they have to forgive literal treason just to maintain power? What did Prigozhin gain from this? What about Kadyrov’s movement towards Rostov, does he stand down as well? Was this all a weird performance?

Just…bizarre.

It’s pretty incredible how out of step Alito and Thomas seem to be even with the other conservative justices. Anytime there’s a 7-2 or 8-1 ruling you can almost guarantee they’ll be writing the dissent.