StopDisinfo910

The interesting part has more to do with the ideological fundation than with the electoral reality. It's not about winning a few percentage points, it's about the ground work for their political vision.

Like the Great Rus and Kirill give a cultural justification for Putin war and anchors them in an historical framework where they make sense, Trump (I mean Vance really) is using the evangelists and the threat of a perceived shift in what makes America America has a justification for his policies.

It's pervasive throughout Project 2025.

I deeply oppose MAGA but the idea of winning through the take over of the cultural institution - school, universities, the media - has been theorized by Gramsci followers like Marcuse and Horkheimer.

In a lot of way, what we are witnessing in a counter movement swinging opposite to the heavy push for critical theory in the public sphere. Critical theory is not neutral. It is teleological in nature.

Schools have been a battle ground for decades I fear.

It has similarity in that there is a form of alliance between predominantly white fundamentalist catholics and evangelical christians and Trump which is embodied by Vance which could be seen as mimicking Putin proximity with the Orthodox church. They both use their churches to justify a civilizational agenda and frame autocracy as protection.

Still, there are several major differences one bieng the patriarch supporting Putin while the Catholic church mostly opposes Trump.

It flagged me saying UBI by giving money to the rich was a form of negative transfers as "negativity" and said it was polarizing. I don't think it's ready for prime time.

The filter is implicitly tuned on American culture. It's very easy to trigger the negativity one by merely pointing facts if you don't give opposite but unequal arguments and it deeply dislikes lightly oppositions which would perfectly acceptable in my own culture. It reminded me a bit of the Copilot email coach and it's unceasing invitation to add sentences devoid of meaning to "improve the tone" your email. The overall score is mostly opaque too.

I think there is a confusion between engaging and culturally palatable to the average American and of quality.

If I add to go through this, one, I would be deeply annoyed, two, I would just pass all my comments through another LLM if I really had to interact.

The main thing Google is screwing up is that if my API key somehow leaks and I end up with extremely out of line billing at Microsoft, I will be on the phone with a customer representative as soon as we or they notice something weird happening and a solution will be found.

Google will probably have me go through five bots and if, by some kind of miracle, I manage to have a human on the phone, they will probably explain to me that I should have read the third paragraph of the fourth page of the self service doc and it's obviously my fault.

As far as I know, they are merely shifting capacities from the customer market towards the data center market with minimal retooling. I am unaware of any of the three actively investing in new capacity. Some modest increase are planned but nowhere near what you would expect given current demand.

You were asking for legitimate purposes. That's some of them.

That's not how this works. Unregulated markets are not a free for all. Law still apply in the absence of a regulator.

Also, unrelated minor pet peeve, but what's the deal with the "not ai emdash"? You can just use dash or comma, you know.

Keeping track of which of your citizens are outside of the country. Ensuring the state knows you are a citizen and should be treated as such.

France had a weird issue recently about the media talking for ages about someone who committed a crime while the state had asked for him to be deported months before on the basis of his foreign passport and it took weeks for someone to finally notice that the guy was actually French. It made the police looks clownish.

RAM production is highly inelastic and controlled by an oligopoly. They have little desire to increase production considering the lead time and the risk that the AI demand might be transient.

They actively prefer keeping confortable margins than competing between each other. They have already been condemned for active collusion in the past.

New actors from China could shake things up a bit but the geopolitical situation makes that complicated. The market can stay broken for a long time.

I think you missed the core arguments of the article. Fewer stops mean faster bus and faster bus helps with regularity and wait time. It also means you can do more loops with the same number of buses and drivers so it reduces cost per trip.

It's not marginal at all. Stops rebalancing actually address your core issues. Less stops also mean more money per stop to provide nice shelters which solves your second issue.

I don't think it explains everything.

I think social norms have a lot to do with it. It's like the actual social costs of being the one who broke the social trust is so high it dissuades people.

It worked for me on a lower level. Everyone cut queues and will grab an empty seat if it looks available at a packed restaurant here so I do it too but I never did that when I lived in Singapore because I knew that's not how things work there and people would genuinely be mad at me for doing it.

It's like a self-fulfilling, self-improving environment. Same with Japan and cleanliness.

State provided housing for most and a booming economy with low unemployment must help too.

AI doomsday scenarios all have the same flaws. They systematically confuse social constructs with laws of nature.

Everything that starts with mass unemployment and don't finish with strikes, riots and the technology being massively regulated can safely be disregarded. If people have to chose between AI and society, they will chose society.

It's important to remember that things like the economy, the market or even money are social constructs which hold because people collectively decide to believe in them. Watch what happens to data centers when the people controlling the electric grids, manufacturing parts, growing the food, or driving the trucks carrying it stop doing so.

People in power know that. They also know they would be collateral damages if it reaches this point. Generally speaking people in power like to stay in power. This power depends on society staying an acceptable choice to most. Except regulations to happen far before AI starts rocking the boat too much.

The cynic in me thinks they don't want to crash their valuation.