ThenElection
No bio...
User ID: 622
I would go with 10:1, if forced to put odds on it.
So, what is a fact pattern that would support a valid defense in this jurisdiction, but would not in others? The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is clearly(?) a stricter standard than in other places.
It's near impossible for something to make me have a lower opinion of journalists than I already do, but doxxing a juror managed to.
He should embrace his grifter arc, get a million dollars in donations or whatever, and pay his rent.
I really try not to follow this story, but it seems like a really high bar for the prosecution to meet, in any case. If I'm a juror, I have a hard time imagining any evidence the prosecution could bring to make it beyond a reasonable doubt, short of a recording of the defendant bragging that they were faking it.
There's also the disruption in energy and pressure on inflation and interest rates, which is the bulk of the economic cost of the war.
The situation continues to develop and the dynamics are interesting. The mainstream media line seems contrary to your predictions. In short, NBC investigations report he is no angel:
Court documents and interviews with family members reveal a history of domestic violence allegations. We discovered a pending eviction case tied to months of not paying rent.
According to a police report, the juror's 13-year-old nephew called 911 after he said his uncle grabbed his wife by the throat and threw her into a dresser. The report says the juror's mom repeatedly screamed, "You're evil!" as police arrested him.
Last year, that same teenage nephew referenced in the 2021 incident took out a restraining order after he said the juror pushed him to the ground and repeatedly punched him in the face. The teen wrote in his affidavit that his uncle then said, "You ruined my (expletive) life," for calling the police and added, "You've had this coming your way for a long time."
Whatever the broader issues are, rent delinquents should be shot.
Thanks for this pointer; I hadn't heard of it. To anyone interested: https://www.colorado.edu/today/1997/05/27/mystery-event-australian-outback-nuclear-blast-earthquake-or-meteorite
As it turns out, "I'll join the Nazi party and attempt to make it act better so we get better outcomes" is apparently a very appealing strategy. Along with, I'll join it and quit six weeks later and get lots of good press for how brave I am.
I think the "it's just marketing" people are more interested in seeming appropriately cynical and worldly than in trying to form a real mental model of Anthropic people. And I kind of get it: the average Anthropic employee is multiple sd weirder than the average person. And most people are being generous in going "oh they're just greedy liars"; the actual Anthropic mental model would get the response "what the ever living fuck are you thinking." But, from personal knowledge of multiple employees there, they absolutely, 100% believe what they're saying.
The logic is that, absent any action on their parts, there's a 10% risk of apocalypse. However, if they are the ones to build ASI, they will do it better and prevent the people irresponsibly building ASI from destroying the world. E.g. the "the only way to stop a bad guy with an eldritch horror that could destroy the world is a good guy with an eldritch horror that could destroy the world."
AI is bad at producing useable images.
Art is meh, writing style is terrible. Part of this is the lack of RLVR; the alternative just trains the model to produce the lowest common denominator, which is what we get.
But, fundamentally, I don't think the labs care about art or prose style. Writing can be slop and it'll annoy people for a couple years, while math is a load-bearing component of RSI. Get RSI, and you can catch up on writing over a long weekend.
That does sound like downplaying it, your preamble notwithstanding.
But, sure, we don't have an AI Grothendieck yet. It's been a full three hours since OpenAI announced a solution to Navier Stokes; but, what's it done for us lately, I think we've hit a wall, etc.
Give it a year, or six months, or three, who knows, and we'll be in a different place.
- Prev
- Next

I'll concede your point, though I do still believe adopting a more conventional standard would make it easier to get a real conviction in a case like this (and that would be a good thing).
More options
Context Copy link