Trump does a thing, the market goes down as a result, so he does a 180 on the thing.

That he may also be doing it to lower prices for friends and family so they can buy up stocks just before he does a reversal and the market rebounds, making them all a lot of money, is immaterial to whether this counts as TACO.

No, it's equality.

Taken to its logical conclusion, you cannot have gender equality without either making the draft cover everyone or abolishing it entirely.

The fact that women losing their lives is so much larger a risk for the nation only serves to test the resolve of those people claiming to want gender equality, but this is not the only time you'll find a conflict between idealism and reality, even within the scope of gender equality.

Women have no incentive to change that, and the small fraction of men powerful enough to change it can already exempt themselves from the meat grinder. The remaining men's opinions don't matter.

The Democrats are hardly perfect, and I wish we had something better to oppose the Republicans, but let's at least acknowledge who the real villain is.

However, I think it worth pointing out that gaming in general has always been looked at as lesser. That has eased over time as gaming has gone from a rather small, niche activity to a huge industry, but gaming is still looked down upon. Ironically, as it relates to the article, I've read recently that gaming is top on the list of hobbies that are turn offs women have for men they date.

Also lesser known because due to a trademark dispute, all sequels and the VGA remakes of the series were renamed to Quest for Glory.

I deeply enjoyed that whole series in my childhood, even despite how weird the voxel-based art in the fifth game was. IIRC, I learned the "razzle dazzle root beer" cheat in Hero's Quest before I learned the Konami code, and, with the help of my dad, even learned how to hex edit my save games in Quest for Glory 2.

Sadly, the nebraska wildfires guarantee that situation isn't getting better anytime soon (and may actually get worse).

Rampant, uncontrolled consolidation of media, PACs, lobbying, and granting cushy jobs to retired congresspeople all give the wealthiest individuals extremely outsized control over what happens in the US government.

The more appropriate tools for ICs are torches and pitchforks.

Unfortunately, while the most equitable solution might be to create a separate category unique to trans individuals, there aren't enough trans athletes to make it feasible (yet?). It's rather sad that transitioning means a person can no longer compete in sports, but I'm not sure there's a better alternative.

> The weird, rare, surprising patterns [that make data rich] slowly get smoothed out when an AI model trains on outputs from a previous model.

i.e., the patterns are responsible for making data rich, and they are slowly lost as each new generation model trains on the prior generation's output.

Or, if you'd prefer an analogy, we're using a copy machine to output new documents by taking the last copy spit out by the machine, adding some marks to it, and running it through the copier again. Over time, details present in much older copies blur and fade away in Nth generation copies.

Social graces require that she play it off as people being "nice", but I guarantee you she knows precisely what's going on. Women aren't stupid.

She may have even deliberately cultivated this relationship, but that's not something a rando internet person like I can determine.

Since you brought up Star Trek, a good analogue for AI would be the holodeck. Given the appropriate prompts, it produces amazing scenery and even immersive fantasy narratives.

But occasionally, it goes haywire, the safeties no longer work, and the characters from your fictional adventure try to kill you.

Not only aren't they known for being smart, but they're known for explicitly filtering out smart people.

The 2nd court of appeals ruled in favor of a city (New London, Connecticut) which rejects police applicants for having too high a score on intelligence tests.

See: https://abcnews.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story...

See: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-smart-to-be-a-cop/

This is despite the fact that police regularly escalate their encounters, making them more dangerous for everyone, police included.

Maybe loggers need to start doing their jobs with miniguns like that scene in Predator.

For that very reason, insider knowledge, and especially the ability to influence future outcomes, become the subject of heavy regulation. And, the lack of such regulation for congressional members is also why their net worth tends to skyrocket once entering office.

Gung-ho AI advocates overlook problems and seem to focus more on the potential they see for the future, giving everything a nice rose tint.

Pessimists will focus on the problems they encounter and likely not put in as much effort to get the results they want, so they likely see worse results than they might have otherwise achieved and worse than what the optimist saw.

I can't speak for other parts of the world, but in the US, it's not uncommon for people to walk on eggshells while reporting information to coworkers (and especially managers) because there's absolutely a large cohort who will shoot the messenger. Crocker's Rules are undoubtedly a reaction to the extreme whereby managers in particular fail to receive receive crucial information because their reports are too afraid to pass it along.

In other words, people fail to communicate out of fear born from an assumption on how the person they're communicating with will react. The original quote would have you ignore your own fear and hand over the information, while your modified version would indirectly address your fear by refusing to take responsibility for how the recipient might feel. Whichever way you go with it, you're largely accomplishing the same thing.

There certainly exist bad regulations and bad bureaucrats, but many (most?) regulations are written in blood, whether it be from employees, customers, or merely innocent bystanders, and there needs to be a group of people who facilitate said regulations.

I'm all for aggressive and continuous re-evaluation of regulations and downsizing bloated bureaucracies, but blanket "all bueeaucrats/regulations are bad" sentiments gets us ineffectual and grifting BS like DOGE, and it creates the very real possibility we'll have to re-learn bloody lessons down the road.

Knee-capping the USDA will almost certainly to lead to some very painful education in the future.