jwalgenbach

The treatment is for type 1, not type 2. Very different causes.

Campaign donations are not personal gifts, and regulated by election laws. This is a false equivalency and at best whataboutism.

This is not to say Citizen's United shouldn't be repealed and campaign contributions much more tightly regulated. But it ain't the same.

Cars don't run. And even if they did, or you tortured the definition to include rolling on fairly straight prepared paths as running, it is only better for specific definitions of better.

Cars are faster on reasonable traversable terrain. Are they more or less energy efficient? Under what circumstances? Do they self navigate the best path around obstacles? Better is really subjective.

And this applies to the large language models too. Just like calculators, they are going to do some things better, or maybe cheaper. But I've played with them trying to get them to write non-trivial programs, and they really do fail confidently. I suspect the amount of source code online means that any common problem has been included in the training data, and the LLM constitutes a program. So, at this point for programming, it's fancy Google. And that has value, but it is not intelligence.

I am not saying we (as a society) shouldn't be worried about these developments. Near as I can tell, they will mostly be used to further concentrate wealth among the few, and drive people apart because we already can't settle on a common set of (reasonably) objective facts about what is going on -- both problems are probably the same thing from different perspectives...

Except it is the speech of those pressuring the company that is free. I can tell a company that supports things I don't agree with that I won't be a customer. If enough of customers vote with their wallets, the company will change it's policies because it cares about profit.

No one is obligated to give either their money or attention to Elon Musk, or to third parties that are perceived to support Musk's companies.

I think it is the use of the term "landchad". I've never heard it before. Maybe it's a thing, but it sure sounds like a phrase from the incel world.

The internet was meant to be used by people who knew how the internet worked. Herein lies the problem.

This might sound like gatekeeping, and maybe it is. When these systems were designed, they were not designed to be used by everyone. They were not designed to be commodities that are bought and sold, with the most valuable trinket available being the attention of the user. But this is where we are.

Few are capable of running their own _anything_ on the internet, and even fewer have the desire to do it, because if you run it well for yourself (as an individual), someone else will want you to do it for them because you are already doing it, so it's not that much more work, right? \s

Decentralization limits monetization of anything, so that is going to be a non-starter for investment of resources. Unless you are trying to have your infrastructure survive a nuclear war, no one is going to provide the means to build anything big unless you can sell it or the users of it.

The notion that anything really works on the internet with the assumptions that were made in the 70s and 80s, and the realization that what holds most of it together is the blood and sweat of ops, duck tape, and fever dreams consistently astonishes me. In the not so distant past, someone paid me to write them a custom FTP server. In the 21st century. It's like being asked to whittle an engine block out of a tree.

Why not use all of it? I opted out of micropayments and ads, installed the full bevy of ad blocking on Brave, and use pihole for DNS.

No. They're all bullshit.

There is not a direct relationship between Fox News and Fox 45. That is true.

But...

Fox 45 Baltimore is owned by the Sinclair Broadcast Group, and corporation with a definite pro-Trump bias, and a history of making editorial decisions pushing stories to the right.

So you can say that Fox News and Fox 45 don't have anything to do with each other in a corporate tree, but the are both pushing the far right narrative because they largely follow the same editorial dictates.

Unless Trump is challenging the terms of service that he had to agree to when getting his account, this is largely a non-issue. Trump _agreed_ that Facebook/Twitter could ban him whenever he crossed their usage policy, which they can alter at any time.

Essentially, Trump agreed that they had the right to ban him before he posted anything to their services.

So sure, the government may be able to force people to host things they don't want to, but I don't think the government will force anybody to break a contract that both parties agreed to in this case.

Or because sequels often add new characters. And the Trump Republicans made themselves ridiculously easy targets...see the Four Seasons Landscaping fiasco, paying off Playboy models and pornstars, suggesting publicly that people inject themselves with bleach or somehow use sunlight internally...

People mock them because they do stupid things. Those are called consequences.

That's actaully the problem. You can't change a fingerprint, but you can fake one.