They want to make money from both markets, but one just makes way more sense to focus on. Especially since people will prefer intelligent + sycophantic to less intelligent + equal amounts of sycophancy.
I dont think they actually do. IMO a large problem with most AI companies is they are vanity projects being overseen by bloated, already successful, companies that are looking to find a second revenue stream in the future. But that future is far off and the current revenue streams aren't going anywhere soon, so they can afford to be stupid and make their AI's intentionally stupid to placate their employees who don't want to see an AI outputting things that would offend said employees.
You can chalk me up as someone who thinks empathy and the truth are fundamentally at odds. And I think this scales quickly. Sure, on a personal level or in a family its something small like, "I know you're scared little guy but the shot wont hurt" or "sure honey you look good in that" but it quickly escalates to unmanageable levels even at the community level. Schools that let empathy take the wheel end up passing illiterates and violent kids through the system, they provide free lunches, they dismantle gifted programs. States enact unwieldy and expensive welfare programs, arcane minority benefit regulations, ever expanding censorship regimes, etc.
Little has changed in 2 decades
This is way too much words and speculation. The actual reasons are quite simple: Muslim Arabs did 9/11; Muslim Arabs would do 10k 9/11s if they were capable of doing so, they say so themselves; Muslim Arabs also hate Israel and sometimes divert their hate in that direction; Muslim Arabs also disrupt other important interests to normal people like international boating trade; Muslim Arabs that have been allowed into America or borne to such people statistically disfavor the Republican party.
There is no reason for a Republican to be in favor of any Muslim Arab until you get to the "they hate Jews" dregs level. Instead, what the actual question is why would anyone support Palestine ever. They are losers who lose, and they lose while intentionally killing civilians. It is hard to think of a valid reason to support not just Hamas, but ANY Palestinian. They elected Hamas after all. Hamas continues to sustain support at levels unheard of in the US for a political party.
So it is all odd, probably nonsensical, arguments to convince anyone on the American right that Palestinians aren't bad. I certainly think that there is good evidence that they are deserving of a nuke to the face and subsequent scattering if not deserving in a full elimination.
I mean, I strongly oppose public school teachers being required, or even permitted, really, to hang the Ten Commandments in a classroom. Public schools should not endorse an establishment of religion.
This boils down to banning public schools when you look at it at all. Every school teaches a religion, it just depends what flavor.
Because why? You think its unreasonable to think blacks are bad at choosing candidates?
To minimize the harm they did to others through voting. Or the harm to blacks was less than the harm to others caused by blacks voting are two perfectly reasonable answers.
I mean, I chose engineering because it's an area where genuine technical ability/ technically excellent work exists, and because it draws personality types (both male and female) who tend to get excited about the material work itself and who want to use their technical ability to do a good job. Also because I have first- and second-hand personal experience of adjacent things happening.
You may think this, it might actually be true for you. That is not why the meme exists. Nybbler is correct. The meme exists for 2 reasons: 1) The "Hello HR" meme is true to life; and 2) Reality produces approximately 1 Marie Curie a century, whereas it produces dozens of her male equivalents. I was once an engineering student. Lady engineering students, as a rule, just flirt to get their work done by the men.
That was going to be done regardless of blacks voting. Segregation had overwhelming majorities with or without black franchise when it began.
I heard of it. What is the bad governmental outcome that derived from literacy tests?
Sure, that sunset of Americans might also have trouble.
If your behavior is indistinguishable on the exterior from the actions of a cackling demon? Yes
There are hurdles. If Gaza was full of Americans it would be a paradise and Israel would be afraid not of terrorist attacks, but of being surpassed as the local economic power.
It has a bad record? Please elaborate. Of you are American, expanding the franchise is strongly correlated with poor governance. If you live in Russia, voting is strongly correlated with Vladimir Putin being in charge. In Gaza, Hamas. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood.
What actually gets me is a different question: Why the hell is the US attorney even making calls like that? My general takeaway is that the US Government would greatly benefit by following the process most local prosecutors offices have: Police investigate crimes, sometimes they come to the prosecutors for things like subpoenas, search warrants, and legal advice, but largely they investigate cases on their own. THEN they present findings to the prosecutors who decide which charges best apply to the case. The prosecutor then files those charges and gets a grand jury to indict it (or very rarely they will deliver a no true bill, at which point the case is dead). This whole situation of prosecutors actively participating in the investigation of crimes and negotiating with defense counsel before investigations are concluded and charges are filed is just begging for corruption to enter into the process.
No, that is bad and stupid. They should not be meeting with defense until after charges are filed. If defense convinces you that the most serious charges are legally insufficient, you can move to have them dismissed and proceed on the lesser charges instead. This happens as a matter of course in state trials. A defendant may be charged with First Degree Murder, and then plead to 2nd Degree, or Manslaughter in exchange for dismissal of the higher charges. The US Attorneys seem to have tied themselves into knots with odd self-imposed regulations that seem to only serve two purposes: 1) Enable corruption; and 2) Keep their caseloads low by refusing to prosecute cases they might lose.
Even if they are, Red Tribe Americans are smarter and better trained than those two groups plus one would need to account for military defections. Like I said, they'd have to glass everyone. You can't hold a mid sized suburb with drones and a few tanks. You need to be able to go door to door.
It is certainly true in almost all major blue states. It is also true in many purple states like Ohio, PA, Virginia, and more. Your admission that people can't take their gun into the post office anywhere is also telling. What that means is you can't GO to the post office if you have a gun on you while you are walking around, or if you are in your car, you need a safe in which to store your gun lest it get stolen when you go into the post office. Even many red states have municipalities that ban firearm possession on public transit, meaning many people are effectively disarmed during work hours.
DLs, OTOH are basically universal and trivially easy to obtain. No one actually fails the driving test anymore, I doubt they ever did. And you get multiple screw ups before privileges are revoked. Indeed they can be re-obtained even after DUIs. OTOH, 1 fuck up with a gun typically means permanent deprivation of your gun rights, subject to rapidly ratcheting prison sentences.
Gazan's are such an incompetent set of people that when given almost 2 decades of self rule they did absolutely no economic development, no infrastructure construction, etc etc. Instead they dedicated all that time towards scheming up new terrorist attacks.
If Red America was given a similar gift they would be on the moon and the US gov would be afraid to attack the free enclave because they might lose.
Yes Gaza sucks to live in, because it is full of Gazans.
Many people get very uncomfortable with frank and honest discussions about voting and voting rights (one may hearken back to SSC's Civil Rites post for more elaboration). My con law professor had a Roko's basilisk-esque response to our 1L Federalist society secretary (or maybe it was treasurer) pointing out that "voting is just pointing guns at people with more steps." I don't find something along that line uncommon.
The possibility of a gun being used weighs on me, and I think on the bearer, even if they think it doesn't. It's there, physically weighing on them, tugging at their belt or ankle, or purse, reminding them every time they move that it is an option, a choice in the dialogue tree. And because it's an option, it changes every interaction into a (potential) life or death confrontation. Yes, there are circumstances under which I am prepared to kill you. They've already had that conversation with themselves, already decided that such circumstances exist and could arise today, at this Applebee's Neighborhood Grill.
This seems like a you problem. People who legally carry have a minuscule crime rate. The reason that person has a gun at Applebees is because he had it before he got to Applebees and it is more convenient and safe for him to bring it in then to leave it in the car or have a special car gun safe that he locks it in before leaving the car. You dont really factor into said person's mind at all.
More broadly, I think that the idea to use guns to keep the government in check was fine in 1800 but today is just laughable. Since world war one, the wartime capabilities of states and what US citizens are allowed to own have greatly diverged. How is your semi AR15 with a ten rounds mag going to fare against a predator drone or a tank? In the very best case, you would be fighting a protracted war against the federal government. If you win, it looks like Mao winning his civil war, if you lose, it looks like Hamas in Gaza.
Hamas is still kicking in Gaza, the Taliban are in charge of Afghanistan. Unless the US government is willing to glass itself semiauto pistols and rifles pose a significant challenge to imposing a tyranny.
For the most part, people agree with the level of regulation around cars, which are immensely practical in most areas but also account for a huge fraction of accidental manslaughters. So you need a driver's license, your vehicle has to be designed according to certain standards and get regular safety inspections, and you need to obey all lot of different rules while on a public road. This is all very bothersome and expensive, but it also keeps these manslaughter cases on a manageable level, compared to a counterfactual level where everyone could build their own vehicle and try to learn to drive it unsupervised.
I've often seen similar arguments. It, i think, often stems from an ignorance of what actually the gun laws are. In most places in America, it is much more difficult to obtain the licenses to take a gun to the store or post office than it is to get one to drive there.
Imagine if Nazis kept co-opting gun clubs and local chambers of commerce. Perhaps that would help you see the trouble with this kind of excuse making.
Its a record, typically on paper of purchases or debts. They are less common now, but a typical example would be when you go to the dry cleaner and drop off a suit, the carbon paper they hand you is commonly called a chit.
One thing I often find annoying about this sort of conversation is we are often talking about someone's internal state of mind. I find that irrelevant. See also trans/gay and "groomer." When your outward actions are indistinguishable from the person that thinks the thing I think they think, they have to bring the chits. This is true whether you are a teacher talking to 13 year olds in private about how anal is great and they don't need to share this conversation with their parents, or whether you are a legislator voting for an arcane and complex regulatory system that will commandeer 1/10th of the economy instead of a simple flat tax.
Edit: And by the way, the suspicion gets worse because you, Mr. Legislator, always want the arcane and complex regulatory system whether it is carbon, or medicine, or banking... Very suspicious.

Comment 1 is a combination of strawmanning and mocking. It also includes a reference to a meme that is arguably being applied incorrectly.
Overall a low-mid quality comment that, if you agree with you are likely to ignore, and if you disagree with you might throw a minus on it. That it has +10 at all is strong proof of anti-gun people voting on ideology.
The second one is perfectly mid, I would not have voted on it, and in fact did not. But it does invoke several anti-gun idiocies like appeals to other combat weapons, hunting, drivers licenses, etc. I can see a strong argument for giving it a downvote for being mealy-mouthed gish-gallop and I see no reason other than length and partisanship for an upvote.
More options
Context Copy link