He probably did it to troll people and spark outrage but that does not mean that he isn’t also a Nazi / fascist.

However he is also banging on about inheritance tax, which has nothing to do with whether real farmers can make ends meet and everything to do with rich, tax-dodge farmers like himself.

I don’t think that the safe harbour provision should apply when the person posting is the owner of the company.

Is one of those things giving attribution? If I ask for a picture of Mount Fuji in the style of a woodblock print, can the AI tell me what its inspirations were?

AIs take away attribution as well as copyright. The original authors don’t get any credit for their creativity and hard work. That is an entirely separate thing from ownership and property.

It is not at all OK for an AI to take a work that is in the public domain, erase the author’s identity, and then reproduce it for people, claiming it as its own.

I am taking issue with your calling them “habitual losers” since it’s demonstrably untrue. If you only look at the last election, you can’t call it “habitual”. If you widen the timescale, the worst possible is the last 3, in which they still won 1/3. In any other timescale, they were even or won more. Sure, there are other offices, but the presidency is quite a big one to overlook.

I said that you aren’t ever going to understand what really happened if you start with a false premise, and you’re obviously going to defend your false premise to the end, so I’m out.

Yes! Let’s have some reflection and not pick the timescale to suit a narrative. The “habitual losers” won 3 of the last 5. Pelosi, Clinton, Biden etc. were all very present when Obama was in the Whitehouse.

I totally agree that it’s ridiculous to lose to Trump, but you can’t claim that they lost because their platform could never win, because it already has - including against Trump.

Why did they lose? I don’t know - but I do know that you aren’t going to find the answer if you start from a false premise.

I wasn’t suggesting that they do. I was commenting on the fact that they don’t even have the decency to pretend.

Absolutely. Trump wants to sell that info, not give it away!

Of course. It’s just that they haven’t even come up with a plausible excuse.

it’s standard for providers to bill for two colonoscopies if they remove two or more polyps in different ways.

Billing for 2 procedures instead of 1 could conceivably explain why the bill was twice as high as the estimate. It could not possibly explain why the bill was three times as high as the estimate.

It would be a ‘critical position for fighting Trump’ if you hadn’t voted Trump in.

The “habitual losers” won last time around.

In the medieval period, there was the common idea that if something is too perfect, it must have been made by the Devil. To forestall accusations of having done a deal with the Devil, craftsmen would often deliberately introduce flaws in their design.

That’s why there are always gaps in my dovetails.

I agree that the article is pushing a narrative, but you have to recognize that AIs are absolutely not being kept in sandboxes where they cannot affect the outside world.

Some AIs are being asked to write code. Do all the users of that code check it thoroughly before putting it into production?

Apple have recently rolled out Apple Intelligence. Siri can do all kinds of things on your phone.

People are racing each other to put AI in everything, and the restrictions on them will be looser and looser.

Thou is singular and you is plural. Thou art. You are.

OK, I misunderstood you. Would calling them “senator” be better?

How clearly can Musk telegraph that if you want safety, you shouldn’t drive a Tesla? More evidence that he is a genius CEO.

In her case, baroness is the title she got when appointed to that house. She isn’t a hereditary baroness, which still exist.

The real problem with the House of Lords is that it’s packed with political appointees - like Meyer - and quite a few were appointed after losing their elected position in disgrace.

The scary thing here is that the pledges came out of shareholder activism. If the corporation will not do what the shareholders ask of it, then who is calling the shots?

We often hear that CEOs have no choice but to put profits ahead of morals because they are obliged to deliver profits to the shareholders. We can see here, that they’re prepared to act against the wishes of the shareholders, so that excuse is clearly untrue.

Loving people is what makes it painful. It opens you up to constant worry and inevitable loss. Even so, I think it’s a price worth paying.