stinkbeetle

Yes governments are all rotten and corrupt to the core. We should be castrating them and limiting their size and power as much as possible, everywhere.

It's not an overly cynical view, it's a realist view. Every person and organization's behavior should be considered and predicted by its motivations and incentives. Deviation from that would be naive and non-scientific.

Western politicians and political parties incentives are to get elected while doing as much as possible for special interests (and by extension, as little as possible for the common good).

China has a parliament. It's part of the communist uniparty / dictatorship, but it's a parliament.

What do you mean, it's what you've been getting at? Chinese markets losing money, or something else in the article? There must be a missing link or context missing here? Who are you and what is your thesis?

You're not "laying anything out", you have been wrong from start to finish about this.

1. You were wrong about the first amendment providing protection from libel / defamation action.

2. You were wrong about damage not existing or not applying because the person has a certain amount of wealth or holds public office.

3. What you have written above is regurgitating what I already explained to you in other posts. As you can see, it is I who have laid it out for you. That you couldn't bring yourself to reply to my other post that educated you is telling.

Again, if you want to make a useful point or observation about the case, the idiotic internet gotchas and stupid rhetorical questions do not do that. You really can't fathom what possible damages a person whose success relies on public perception and who spends money to improve their public image could possibly suffer by being defamed? Please.

I don't think integrity is the reason for it. If you don't see it as an irredeemable moral issue for people to have worked at AI companies, then it is not a matter of integrity that you don't shun them.

Or, you might consider it a moral issue but may not believe that shunning is not the way to achieve a positive result. Also not a failure of integrity.

> Which is exactly what the capitalists that own these systems want. Divide and conquer.

> "Pay no attention to the men who are responsible for you situation, instead pointlessly fight amongst yourselves."

Maybe so, but that advice is for the western left, who openly and boastfully despises the working class these days. They might have thought about that if they wanted any "working class solidarity". It's been a staggering achievement either incompetence or coordinated malice that they could flip the balance of blue collar voters to right-wing parties in a generation. They chose who they wanted to lie with.

Except rocks. They become dirt.

Well if leading scientist George Carlin says "the earth will be renewed" conjecture is true then it must be true. The science is settled everybody, no need to panic.

Great post. Very interesting though the physics is well above my head.

> if someone did prove MOND

How could MOND be proven if it is disproven? Is there a chance it is not really disproven, or you mean the equations for forces might still be modified in a way that fits observations? Or that it could be MOND plus something else?

> When you say "physicists discover a much more logical explanation" that's what you're talking about.

I wonder what is illogical or band-aid feeling about matter that interacts with gravity but not other forces though. Why would all types of matter interacting with electromagnetism and strong nuclear forces be logical

I'm not aware of what damages Trump alleges in the suit or if it has any merit at all. Being rich does not mean there is no damage or disqualify a person from restitution though. And holding public office or a government job doesn't disqualify a person from protecting their private interests, although I imagine it could make the case a lot more complicated.

Aside, using civil courts to attack opponents is certainly a problem, but in USA it favors the speaker a compared to a lot of other countries. In US the plaintiff has to prove the speech is false and for public figures that there was malice. Which in my opinion goes a bit too far and gives media corporations more power over politicians and other public matters. I think the public figure stipulation is reasonable and important to allow private citizens to discuss politicians and public matters so that's good, but I think there should be a counter to that which requires organizations reporting the news to have more duty to report truth and not mislead.

> Which raises the scarier question of why they tried this at all?

State censors in western countries are becoming increasingly brazen and desperate. Despite the Orwellian slogans about "safety" they all constantly recite, their objectives are securing the supremacy of the regime not the interests of the people.

> I'm pretty sure misleading speech is still protected by the first amendment.

It is, the government can not prevent or punish people speaking on the basis that the government decides it was misleading.

A civil dispute between private parties is entirely different though. One can be found liable for misleading speech that causes damage to another party.

> The president is trying to throw his weight around because he thinks his fans will like it. He's an idiot.