Ha. They didn’t want to parent before, so you can be sure that guilt is the farthest thing from their minds.
Ha. They didn’t want to parent before, so you can be sure that guilt is the farthest thing from their minds.
I thought he killed himself. Ah well, maybe I didn’t read the article carefully enough.
If your argument is that “people will believe anything” when the name is “Character AI”, then I’m not sure what to make of your position… If there’s ever a time to say “you should have known it was AI”, this is that time. I can’t think of a clearer example.
Not exactly. Nobody controls them. They can do whatever they want, and they often do things that he likes.
So think about the situation. The Supreme Court can try to rule in Trump’s favor, and depending on the details, that would essentially be a coup d’etat. If they try that and fail, they will probably have permanently ended their careers, and I think they would be risking their freedom. And they know it.
It makes sense, right? You can’t easily run them through the court system because they outrank everyone, which makes extra judicial action more likely.
So they could rule in favor of Trump, again depending on whatever hypothetical we’re considering, but I think they would only risk doing that in very narrow circumstances. They didn’t get where they are by sticking their neck out for others. They got it by taking bribes and being opportunistic sleaze bags, by putting themselves first.
It should go without saying that top military leaders and top spy agency leaders have considered what they might do under various circumstances.
Obviously it would depend on the details and we have no idea, but if Trump tries to brazenly push a coup, and it looks like it might be successful, you can imagine someone at the CIA considering whether they should fix the situation.
It’s a strange situation because we can only blindly speculate, but when people are trying to tell us that the sky is falling, it’s important to keep in mind that when you get to a coup d’etat, regular reasoning goes out the window. At some point, again depending on the details, it just doesn’t matter what the Supreme Court says.
And even the financial argument is a joke.
Teenage pregnancies mean less education, which means lower salary, which means more public benefits and less taxes. So the state loses money.
Teenage pregnancies mean more poorer moms and children, which means greater state expenses on health care, child care, and housing. More teen pregnancies means more unhealthy teen pregnancies, which means more ER costs from people with no money to pay for them.
And we could run the numbers, but the point is that we don’t need to. They needed to, and they didn’t, because the whole calculation is filled with unjustifiable assumptions about the importance of counting some things while ignoring others.
Linus says your reasoning is inaccurate.
This kind of article is kinda baitclick because it ignores the elephant in the room… If Trump is running a coup d’etat, what will people in power do? Will they sit there, like they did in 2000? If he’s audacious enough, they won’t. For example, if SCOTUS tries to decide the election (like they did in 2000), I think we would see complete collapse on many levels in many ways.
What are you even talking about? What great democracy? Of course there are various positive and negative things the country has done over the decades, but applauding the Electoral College system isn’t something most people would agree with.
Your feelings are of course valid, that’s how you feel, and it’s a perfectly normal thing. On the one hand technology keeps changing, but on the other hand people are trying to drum up money by selling promises of new technology as if it were snake oil.
All of the talk you hear about AI, it’s 95% nonsense. Of course we can see some new cool toys, and we should be happy that we have new cool toys, but it’s not like something totally magical has happened in the last 2 years, and it’s not like something totally magical is going to happen in the next two years.
With all that in mind, you just got to take a break from the news, whenever you feel like it, and try to be open-minded about what the future will bring. A couple of decades from now is certainly going to be different from a couple of decades ago, and although that can be scary at times, remember that the same thing was true for our parents and their parents and their parents.
The long story makes it even worse. The cops were responding to a 911 call for a white man who was causing a big problem. They got there and talked to that person, and that person said that the black man across the street started it, or some such story. For reasons unknown (racism? lunacy?) the cops decided to take the word of the actual suspect, who would obviously lie to avoid getting in trouble.
Then the cops lied on the police report. They said the victim had resisted, but they didn’t give him time to resist before beating him. They attacked him less than a second after getting out of their car. Even if he had been able to hear, he would have still been beaten down. In the police report, they say he attacked them, but a quick view of the video proves it’s the opposite.
Yes, there are theoretical situations where cops need to use force right away, but the facts here don’t support it. A he-said-she-said situation where nobody is armed or fighting or running away, that’s a quick legal analysis. And even if hypothetically there were justification, they lied on the police report, which only shows that they knew it was wrong.
And after beating him down, and after his girlfriend explaining that he’s deaf, the cops still spoke as if he could understand them, and they refused to let the girlfriend use sign language to establish basic communication. To me, this last point feels worse than everything else. They simply refused to see him, or his girlfriend, as human beings that ought to be treated with any kind of basic respect.
Yes it does sound like that. The title doesn’t suggest that he actually committed crimes. Sorry!
All is a big word. Maybe too big. But the general idea is neat.
I don’t think this is going to outrage anyone new. People who already thought the Democrats were destroying the country are probably still thinking that, and now they just don’t get any support, and their neighbors who were hoping for support are pissed off that their neighbors are assholes, because they can read what’s happening in the newspaper and they can use their eyes and ears and brains.
I generally agree, but we should remember that there are always going to be a small number of fringe elements in any large population. Even the perfect mostly peaceful transition to a two-state solution would still involve some violence from various militants, because that’s what some people (ideally not too many people) out there want, and they’re always going to want it.
50% of a seven-figure number is still at least a six-figure number. Very useful, definitely not essentially useless. If you disagree, please give me six figures, which you apparently don’t need, so I can test the theory.
It’s not a matter of perspective. You used the wrong term. No big deal, we’ve all done it, and now you know.
I think we want the opposite of that. We want insurers to definitely pay out if they sold policies. We don’t want them to collect premiums and then find shady ways to deny payment. If they decide to leave the market entirely, good for them, but as long as they’re selling, we should insist that they pony up the payments.
I think you’re just framing issues to match the claim you’re making. For example, an anti-bad-cop protest could be “protesting against cops violating civil rights” or just as well “protesting to bring justice to the victim’s family”. The former is a negative, the latter is a positive.
The specific rules vary by state. Where do you live, what are you going to do, and can you stream it for us?