I have to quibble with you, because you used the term “AI” instead of actually specifying what technology would make sense.

As we have seen in the last 2 years, people who speak in general terms on this topic are almost always selling us snake oil. If they had a specific model or computer program that they thought was going to be useful because it fit a specific need in a certain way, they would have said that, but they didn’t.

One of the problems that the major news outlets have is that they repeat each other. It’s not merely an issue of AI compiling news stories, but that on top of the fact that all of these newspapers are doing hardly any research. For example, if you live in a town that’s not too large, there might only be one local paper, and they might send out reporters to local events. Obviously you would then go to that newspaper if you wanted to learn about local events, because they are adding explicit value.

But if you’re trying to read about national politics, a lot of the information is going to be the same in a lot of the newspapers. Which means nobody cares about the newspaper itself. And this is a creation of the newspaper’s own decision making over the past few decades.

Right … except for all of the poor Boomers out there … let’s just forget about them. Let’s forget about all the Boomers who tried very hard to stop the wealth shift to the rich. They don’t count; they don’t exist.

You decided to blame the old people instead of … checks notes … the rich people. That was a bizarre choice. Meh.

I would qualify your first point. Parkinson’s Law tells us that we have pointless bosses in huge numbers, and they need to justify their own existence. The people who actually produce things, everyone can see if they’re working or not by looking at the output. But their supervisors, and especially their supervisors’ supervisors, those people are desperate to make themselves relevant, to justify their pointlessly-large salaries despite a complete lack of utility.

Yes, and you should understand the corruption quite well seeing it firsthand over there, right? (Sad to say.)

I’m not worried about the hypocrisy here. I couldn’t give a f*** about Trump being hypocritical. But I care an awful lot that he’s threatening to do something terrible to someone he considers a political opponent.

The average consumer doesn’t care about that aspect though.

They do, of course. There’s plenty of rice of other kinds.

There are other comments that already give practical ways to accomplish what you say is impossible.

The federal government lawyers have said in court that Elon Musk was not the leader of that organization. Therefore, the fact that he said he has departed from Washington would not affect that organization.

Of course we know that he was leading it, and the president has said as much, and the above claims are all being contested in court by quoting the president. But anyway, if you want the official answer, now you have it.

But the official answer also changes over time. Because if Musk was not the leader of that group, then many of the actions that he claimed to take and many of the actions that people attributed to him would now be actions of a private individual, which would expose him to massive civil liability. Therefore, we can be sure that the government’s lawyers will continue to change their story about when and where and how he worked for the government.

Definitions are important, but you don’t get to unilaterally choose them. Depending on the person you’re talking to, sometimes it’s more effective to ask them to define the terms first, or to ask them which dictionary they prefer.

So depending on the situation, it might be more beneficial to bring in the quotes from various Israeli leaders about how they’re trying to get Palestinians gone, and how they’re happy with Palestinian death, and then bring in those graphs that show the numbers of the dead, and ask whether they think that’s acceptable.

Another way to think about it is that sometimes questions of definition can distract us from questions of morality, and if the person that you’re trying to talk to is running away from the issue. By doing so, you can reasonably adjust your focus back to the facts.

Exactly. Reverse DNS lookup matters in some situations.

That’s true but it doesn’t solve the problem now.

If Musk actually does go to Russia, then I think any of his American investments will be up for grabs. That would be quite entertaining.

Yes, very publicly, but remember that they lie about everything anyway. So it’s not like the world is a better place because two pieces of s*** are insulting each other in front of the world. They could fight today and work together next week if they think it’ll get them more power and money, because that’s all they live for.

I think what you mean to say is that we should be pressuring public officials to try to bust up Google’s monopoly on many things. And we are doing that, and it is showing some progress. But there is much more work to be done.

YouTube took down the video because of its own policies, not because of copyright law. So we should be blaming YouTube.

I think it’s easy to see exactly why if you consider how YouTube treats small content creators. If I post a video and companies claim copyright on it, the video gets demonetized and I might lose my account. I can respond and contest the claim and maybe I can win but I still lost money in the meantime, and perhaps more significantly, the companies that made their copyright claims will never face a consequence for attempting to burn my channel. In other words, if I get things wrong a few times I’ll lose my channel and my income source, but if they get things wrong a million times, they face zero consequence.

And you might be inclined to blame the media companies. But again, this is YouTube doing what YouTube wants to do of its own volition, and not something that’s required by law. If YouTube valued small-scale content creators and end users, it would create different policies.

Of course what you wrote is not what it actually says in the Bill of Rights.

You can buy loyalty. Give someone a high paying 3-year contract and they’ll probably work to the end of it. But of course HR doesn’t want to hear that.