Two things can be true at once. My point was about the quote I pulled. Other perspectives on the topic are a separate matter.

> But science shows that criminals are literally wired differently. For example, the brains of youth homicide offenders are different than those of non-offenders.

Regardless, science doesn't show how these differences form; this phrasing smuggles a nature over nurture perspective as a fact: "more likely to simply be bad people rather than people who happened to be in bad circumstances" (as well as "science shows that criminals are literally wired differently" and "the point is that youth who commit serious crimes are disproportionately likely to be the ones who commit crimes due to factors intrinsic to the individual"). My point is that the statements I quoted are not strictly true, they are what the author expects to be true; I suppose there may be some reason other than morals for said expectation but, seeing as you didn't deny my framing, instead reversing it, I suspect it is accurate.

This is an unreasonable claim without the evidence actually being provided. It reads more as the conclusion you expect to see when you pull up a given study. Especially "simply be bad people" is not a particularly scientific phrase, and is a particularly moralistic one.

https://www.speedrun.com/pencil?h=In_Real_Life-Drillless-10_...

(Not to mention hardware preservation is separate from software preservation and hardware preservation is rarely referring to pencils.)

Note this is not what OP called silly. It's possible to take legitimate issue with something, then act silly about it. People are free to their opinions but not necessarily to (as an extreme example) write their opinions on the wall with their excrement. Regardless of any veracity behind the opinion, some decorum is expected in its expression. (I guess unless one is explicitly doing away with decorum but that's when violence takes its place.)

The people making up the corporation can all vote as individuals and the corporation itself has no vote. This is no different.

It is possible that a bribe was given by someone who is not party to the case and the comment I replied to was explaining that someone who is not party to the case was not giving a bribe, by virtue of the fact they weren't party to the case. I was hoping you could explain your perspective in the context I described but it seems I stumped you, hence the distraction about froyo and no substance in the reply.

Of course you're entitled to your perspective but it seems wrong to say OP ignored what they quoted. They just had an interpretation of it that's different from yours.

For what it's worth, I also see that in Olah's words, largely because it's AI hype from someone who would be a fool not to be an AI hype man. I can't really imagine what else he could be implying. Especially using the word "mysterious", yes, it appears to be an attempt at raising AI above the application of statistics we know it to be; there's little mystery in how it works, and all that's at runtime.

Why does this matter? I'm not involved in any SC case but if I showed up at Clarence Thomas's door with $10 asking him to rule a certain way on a case I'm interested in, it would be called bribery by any sane definition.

No, it isn't. It is a change; whether it's acceleration or velocity is an implementation detail. Whether it should be changed suddenly or gradually is the spec.

Tying this back to OP's comment, it's hard to see these policy changes as any sort of legitimate protectionism and it's just as hard to divorce them from the justifications given by people who start with "I'm not anti-immigrant".

The obvious assumption is that they mean from where we are right now. We're not going to suddenly be at the mid-20th century again. This comes off as argumentative more than curious (as do your other comments in this thread, for what it's worth).

Be fair to what's actually happening:

If I see that a giant monster is going around eating houses and I make some giant monster poison to keep in my closet in case the monster comes for my house, it is actually fairly reasonable to claim I poisoned the monster when it finally does. Even if I agree that the monster should consider the possibility, it can still be true that I poisoned it.

> This isn’t a thing in early human societies.

Sure it is. I hear you sing your song. I travel. I sing your song to other people while you're not around to hear it. You don't even know where I am.

(Of course, there was never any "theft", as it were. I even paid to go to your concert!)

This statement is rather plainly not true. It describes child rearing and claims it does not happen in one breath.

There is a concept of "fairness", which I don't want to discount, but there's not much of a history of people being bottom feeders who do nothing to help those around them. Sure, there's a lot of sentiment to that effect but it is somehow something I fail to observe to this day. It is in the eye of the beholder and I worry for the souls of the beholders who judge so harshly.

This idea that someone is not deserving of food because they have not earned it a sad, anti-social thing to believe, perpetuated by psychological attacks from those who have more than they could ever need. You and your children deserve to eat and disagreement with that statement says more about the one disagreeing than it does any other, regardless of the judgement inherent to the nature of the disagreement (really, because of it, I suppose).

"No greed required" doesn't seem accurate. One would not use an AI to do the job instead of a human, except for the motivation that they would have more at the end of the day.