Like the Great Rus and Kirill give a cultural justification for Putin war and anchors them in an historical framework where they make sense, Trump (I mean Vance really) is using the evangelists and the threat of a perceived shift in what makes America America has a justification for his policies.

It's pervasive throughout Project 2025.

In a lot of way, what we are witnessing in a counter movement swinging opposite to the heavy push for critical theory in the public sphere. Critical theory is not neutral. It is teleological in nature.

Schools have been a battle ground for decades I fear.

Still, there are several major differences one bieng the patriarch supporting Putin while the Catholic church mostly opposes Trump.

I think there is a confusion between engaging and culturally palatable to the average American and of quality.

If I add to go through this, one, I would be deeply annoyed, two, I would just pass all my comments through another LLM if I really had to interact.

Google will probably have me go through five bots and if, by some kind of miracle, I manage to have a human on the phone, they will probably explain to me that I should have read the third paragraph of the fourth page of the self service doc and it's obviously my fault.

Also, unrelated minor pet peeve, but what's the deal with the "not ai emdash"? You can just use dash or comma, you know.

France had a weird issue recently about the media talking for ages about someone who committed a crime while the state had asked for him to be deported months before on the basis of his foreign passport and it took weeks for someone to finally notice that the guy was actually French. It made the police looks clownish.

They actively prefer keeping confortable margins than competing between each other. They have already been condemned for active collusion in the past.

New actors from China could shake things up a bit but the geopolitical situation makes that complicated. The market can stay broken for a long time.

It's not marginal at all. Stops rebalancing actually address your core issues. Less stops also mean more money per stop to provide nice shelters which solves your second issue.

I think social norms have a lot to do with it. It's like the actual social costs of being the one who broke the social trust is so high it dissuades people.

It worked for me on a lower level. Everyone cut queues and will grab an empty seat if it looks available at a packed restaurant here so I do it too but I never did that when I lived in Singapore because I knew that's not how things work there and people would genuinely be mad at me for doing it.

It's like a self-fulfilling, self-improving environment. Same with Japan and cleanliness.

State provided housing for most and a booming economy with low unemployment must help too.

Everything that starts with mass unemployment and don't finish with strikes, riots and the technology being massively regulated can safely be disregarded. If people have to chose between AI and society, they will chose society.

It's important to remember that things like the economy, the market or even money are social constructs which hold because people collectively decide to believe in them. Watch what happens to data centers when the people controlling the electric grids, manufacturing parts, growing the food, or driving the trucks carrying it stop doing so.

People in power know that. They also know they would be collateral damages if it reaches this point. Generally speaking people in power like to stay in power. This power depends on society staying an acceptable choice to most. Except regulations to happen far before AI starts rocking the boat too much.

You have to understand that the security department operates with a fundamentaly different mindset and reality than a business executive. One is responsible for compliance and avoiding adverse events and the other for ensuring the ongoing survival and relevance of the organisation.

Specific waivers for high level members are fully expected. They also have waivers for procurements. It makes sense because they can engage their personnal responsibility for this level of decisions. They don't need the security department to act as their shield.

It's clear that something like Open Claw has the potential to be deeply disruptive so seeing leaders exploring makes sense.

Could you explain to me how a digital id standard involving a mechanism for zero knowledge proof of identity is supposed to help the government crack down on activists (skipping the fact you are using UK examples for a EU spec)?

Take into account the reality we live in where every communication platform already requires you to provide your phone number and you can't get a phone number without providing an ID the European Union please, not some disconnected threat model.

France banned phones in elementary and noddles schools in 2018. It's not the only European country to have done so.

The EUDI spec is tech neutral.

What the EUDI mandates is a high level of assurance under the eIDAS 2.0 regulation and the use of a secure element or a trusted execution environment to store the key.