If some in your experience erred on the side of leniency, then it stands to reason that others might err just as egregiously in the opposite direction.

In fact, your anecdote suggests erring is the norm. We should thus expect punishments to be inappropriate in one direction or another. An appropriate punishment seems rather unlikely.

I would be surprised if the public ever had anything close to the strongest LLM. It’s not like nuclear bombs were created by the private sector, then the government started the Manhattan Project and seized them all for itself.

They probably had Fable-quality models in 2016.

When it comes to whether a meme is a threat, the image largely speaks for itself and there’s no way you can reasonably read that meme to be a threat.

It’s clearly political and taking sides and potentially offensive, but there’s nothing to suggest anyone is going to take to violence. The judge should have seen the picture and denied the warrant.

It’s very well possible that the straight is safe, but the vessels are unnecessarily cautious.

Edit: Now that I’m doing the research a partnership isn’t even needed, just a contract. Which makes sense, the feds cannot hire a private individual to do what would be illegal for them to do themselves… conversely, a company who is contracted to do federal business also enjoys supremacy by virtue of acting for the feds.

So, the government tends to employ PhDs at a substantially higher (~50%) rate than the public workforce.

Edit: Yeah, oops, people generally use public / private the other way around.

I've had friends keep things that I lent them, but that didn't ruin the friendship.

I've had friends say mean things, but that didn't ruin the friendship.

I've even gotten into a fist fight with one, but tempers calmed and the friendship endured. (I mean, the US fought two wars against England)

It's important to know who your friends are, and the knowledge that Europe is not a friend, is worth more to me than Greenland.

It's hypocritical for Europe to claim North American territory, and then claim we should be concerned about a European nation claiming European territory.

Russia and Ukraine are both on the same continent. They're neighbors. That's a much tougher decision than whether a European nation should control Greenland... that's not even on the same hemisphere.

There's also an absence of an apparent ulterior motive. The US and Japan were also on opposite sides of the world, and had little to no prior history. It's not clear why (or along what lines) they would cooperate with each other in the presence of such real territorial conflict.

Germany is a somewhat closer case. Germany and the US had a shared history and tradition. Socialist / Communist politics were widespread in both, and the US was largely divided as to whether they would support or oppose the German socialists / war. So there is a much stronger case for an ulterior motive here. Indeed, Germany indisputably wanted many of their own people to be killed. Their leadership's desire to kill jewish German is beyond dispute... so as it relates to other classes of Germans (e.g. those who fill the Wiermact ranks)... I don't think we can rule out the possibility on the grounds that those people were (also) German.

However, to get back to the territorial aspect, Germany conquered a lot of land, and the Allies took it back. So, a closer situation to the current stalemate in Ukraine would be WWI. If they're not making any progress in terms of territory... what progress do they think they're making? The main change I see from here is that people are dying... so that's probably the whole point.