This will probably create a Constitutional crisis
Pretty certain a judge doing something the constitution allows won’t create a constitutional crisis. We’re already in the middle of one. People are either propagandized enough they don’t believe it, or aren’t in a position to do much about it.
That’s their “safety” category in his rankings. They talk about moderation tools and risks like bad actors posting illicit content quite a bit, actually.
It’s a lot harder to perpetuate historical knowledge when you don’t get support from the educational system. The government sets educational standards and subject matter, so it’s not surprising they de-emphasize the record of their own actions against the public they are teaching.
Universities are more independent (but definitely not completely, and they come with their own set of problems), so students there tend to be more exposed to topics like this. But then you get political movements villianizing universities.
Directional EMP is absolutely possible, but generating a predictable, controllable EMP without a nuclear device is hard. Especially if you want the device generating it to be used more than once.
I think she’s saying she could have allocated the GPUs to Azure to game the metrics, but Microsoft chose to allocate them to internal projects, which is a form of self-investment. She’s not saying they made the wrong decision, she’s saying their decision in this longer-term investment makes the short-term metrics worse.
Yeah, I can understand that. I’m not in that space, so I wasn’t aware. A similar craze happened for removing gluten from one’s diet about 10-15 years ago, and after the hype died down a lot of the new options it spawned stuck around, which was great for people with celiac disease. Hopefully there will be a similar silver lining once this hype passes.
I want to start by saying I generally agree with the theme of the article that the average American already gets enough protein without needing to specifically target it in fast food. However, I think this is not entirely accurate:
Overall recommendations have consistently hovered between 50-70 grams [of protein] per day, depending on weight.
That sounds low to me. I’ve seen nutritionist recommended minimums in the 50-70 range depending on weight, height, gender, and age, but recommended targets are higher. Especially for older men who are at higher risk of muscle loss with age, these recommended targets can be above 90 grams.
Edit: Getting several down votes, so let’s add some sources.
0.8g per kg of weight, which comes out to about 55g per day for a 150 lb person, is a minimum, not an average: https://doi.org/10.3945/an.116.013821
Aging men may need to consume as much as 2g per kg of weight, which comes out to about 135g for a 150 lb man: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10030360
It’s projection. He believes because he’s President of the US, he can make any American organization, public or private, do what he wants, and he’s had moderate success with that. So now he believes all countries operate like that, and any claim otherwise is a lie meant to protect that power.
It’s a classic characteristic of narcissists. They are physically incapable of understanding that people can think differently from then, and that things can work differently than they believe.
Oh good, then the federal government can turn over any evidence the Minnesota state investigators ask for since they don’t need it, right? Right?
“The claim is that recruiting is up, but there is also dread that the gung-ho types that ICE and the Border Patrol are bringing in have a propensity towards confrontation and even violence.”
No fucking kidding. Half the right already believes we’re in an active civil war. With how Trump has been throwing ICE around, who do you think is volunteering? This is going to get a lot worse. We have 10 months to go before even midterms, and he’s already threatened to cancel that election.
We prepared, portioned, and provided all meals and snacks for the study.
Great for the science, not great for the realistic recommendations. Sure, some people eat ultraprocessed foods because they are just easier, but many people eat ultraprocessed foods because they are unable to access healthier options. Either they are too expensive (either in monetary cost or the time commitment to prepare the food) or (I expect moreso the case for older people) they are physically unable to prepare it. If we’re going to recommend older Americans eat less ultraprocessed foods, we need realistic options for them to switch to.
There’s not really a “taking over” the FBI can (legally) do here. The murder happened in Minnesota, so the state of Minnesota can bring a state criminal case against the ICE agent for violating state law while acting within the state. If the FBI also wants to open a federal criminal case against the agent for violating a federal law while in the country, they can open a parallel investigation using the same evidence. But the FBI can’t (legally) “take over” a state criminal case. That’s not how our legal system works.
I keep putting “legally” parenthetically because this administration does whatever it wants and uses contorted readings of the law for creating after-the-fact justifications, but here there are few options available to them even to contort.
We’re about to face a crisis nobody’s talking about. In 10 years, who’s going to mentor the next generation? The developers who’ve been using AI since day one won’t have the architectural understanding to teach. The product managers who’ve always relied on AI for decisions won’t have the judgment to pass on. The leaders who’ve abdicated to algorithms won’t have the wisdom to share.
Except we are talking about that, and the tech bro response is “in 10 years we’ll have AGI and it will do all these things all the time permanently.” In their roadmap, there won’t be a next generation of software developers, product managers, or mid-level leaders, because AGI will do all those things faster and better than humans. There will just be CEOs, the capital they control, and AI.
What’s most absurd is that, if that were all true, that would lead to a crisis much larger than just a generational knowledge problem in a specific industry. It would cut regular workers entirely out of the economy, and regular workers form the foundation of the economy, so the entire economy would collapse.
“Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.”
Very nerdy of me, but this reminds me of a Stargate SG-1 episode “the Sentinel.” The team travels to a planet whose civilization relies on fully automated technology. The people don’t have to operate or maintain it (normally), so their society has completely forgotten how. In the episode, one set of antagonists comes in and sabotages their defense system, and another set sees the opportunity and invades. The protagonists have to then figure out the defense system and fix it.
We don’t live in a TV series. There aren’t benevolent outsiders who will swoop down and save our systems in the nick of time when they break down. We’re headed in a bad direction.