Any politician that has put their own safety on the line. I don’t care if they ratiod Trump on truth social or even took him to court. People with far less privilege are showing up on the front lines to demand accountability, we should expect nothing less from our leaders.

Because she wasn’t angry or scared. She was chill and was getting out of their way. He got angry the she wasn’t given him the satisfaction of acting angry or scared, like he wasn’t a threat to be feared. So the fixed that, he showed us who he really is.

The fact we don’t know who did that murder is wild. We deputized a bunch of murderers and we’re telling them they have absolute immunity.

Also you have absolute immunity just in case there is any friendly fire

We tried to have navy seals plant listening devices in North Korea ahead of a summit, it did not go well. People say nukes, but I think their security is a whole nother level, like our government rarely knows where those leaders are at a given moment.

Teflon Don, like Epstein, collected pictures of powerful people doing “embarrassing” things. Unlike Epstein he didn’t use a private island, he used hotels that catered to people with power.

Our political system equates value to revenue and that is why we don’t tax accordingly. Business owners are labeled “job creators” and taxing them is framed as a negative value add.

Absolutely agree that athletes are also being exploited here and the burden should not fall on them to correct this (except as advocates for a better system).

This. Everyone wants qualified, well paid teachers for their kids, just like how most people want universal healthcare. But our government and media structure actively disempowers any such movements in that direction. Ie “we can agree we all want these things but we can’t agree on how”

And when the social sector lobbies it is called “special interests” by the press. When capital owners do it they are called “job creators” by the press. Edit: or so it goes in the states.

Revenue is not the same as value, teachers enable much more economic activity than athletes. The fact we equate “profit generated” to the value of the profession is part of the problem.

Was thinking about this in the context of a joke I heard in the late 90s:

What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the sea? A good start.

We didn’t we have jokes like that about the billionaires; at the time people were glazing Bill Gates. It’s wild because billionaires are the ones writing the laws, lawyers just act it out.

I seriously doubt people are reading this far and confirmed by none of our comments have gotten an up vote this far down. And again, if what you are saying is obvious to all then there’s no need to comment further if you are appealing to an audience. I think this has more to do with being in control (as evidence by trying to always enforce the boundaries of the conversation even when you yourself violate those same boundaries).

If it is as transparent as you say then you wouldn’t have the need to comment any further. So why did you?

Interesting, I didn’t accuse you of being emotional just that you have emotional needs. Everyone has emotional needs. Nonviolent Communication is a great tool for disentangling judgements from needs; for example, calling me dishonest speaks to a need for integrity.

Yeah, I wasn’t asking for your professional opinion on gAI but why you feel the need to attack people’s professional reputation when it can only detract from your argument. I have no intention of debating someone who levels such insults but I am happy to talk about the emotional needs around such actions.

Just as you questioned my intention with accusations of dishonesty I am wondering what your intention is when disparaging a random person’s professional pedigrees (with no effort to make the person known to yourself first). I made my perspective on this known to you and I am trying to understand what your intention was as it does not aide in the debate you so vigilantly protect.

Honestly not sure what I expected in terms of a response but this is certainly an interesting reaction. “Calling someone dishonest is not a personal attack” is certainly a take. It’s also interesting that dishonesty is your automatic conclusion when there are other alternatives when someone approached you with a different professional experience; absent is the tendency of expert practitioners to be curious about contextual clues that can lead to different outcomes. I’m going to take your criticism in good faith and recognize this is probably the standard you hold yourself to: that any part of yourself that does not comport to the current ideal is to be treated with suspicion.

Your description of the tools was to make an inaccurate comparison. But sure, I am the “dangerous” one for showing how those examples are deterministic while gAI is not. Your responses with personal attacks makes it harder to address your claims and makes me think you are here to convince yourself and not others.

I’ve literally integrated LLMs into a materials optimizations routine at Apple. It’s dangerous to assume what strangers do and do not know.

All the technologies you listed behave deterministically, or at least predictably enough that we generally don’t have to worry about surprises from that abstraction layer. Technology does not just move on, practitioners need to actually find it practical beyond their next project that satisfies the shareholders.