For decades, India's call centres stood as the tired cliche of globalization: cheap voices on bad connections reading from scripts. But global capital has turned, and irony has a long memory. As AIs battle humans for dominance, Indian customer service might become the best in the world. A strange inversion begins. What used to feel inefficient now feels alive. The hesitations, the small talk, the accents once mocked all become proof that someone real is listening. Machines will solve your problem instantly, but they will never sound tired, kind, or quietly amused at your bad day. I forsee a company advertising, "100% Indian customer service!"

America spends ten times as much on the military as education. If we just take a third of the Pentagon's budget and use it on better schools and pilot programs the whole world will thrive in 30 years when those children grow up into happier, smarter better prepared and more stable adults. Redirect even a portion to STEM initiatives, teacher development, and accessible learning, and we could spark breakthroughs in computing, energy, and biology, vaulting humanity into the stars.It would be better if the parents were involved, so we should throw a few billion there as well.

China's rise won't be stopped by military spending anyway. Better to accept Pax Sinica now when we can negotiate better terms and NOT blow the world into bloody dust for ten years. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for capitulation, just giving up some pride and a war that will ultimately be ruinous for all involved. Half the military spending would be more than enough to keep existing commitments to allies and to keep America's shores free of Chinese transports.

These bitcoins will show the information for the last person who handled this bitcoin before it fell into the hands of the scammers. The only decent thing to do is look that up and return it. Some of it won't be possible but many honest men and women bought this bitcoin from exchanges where they gave their identities in the process.

To solve world hunger, deliver a gift of lead to every despot, war lord, and every other evil bastard in power who thinks it's a good idea to use starvation as a weapon, as a way to keep people in line, or to motivate people. That's the only way.

I sprang for the $200 ChatGPT a few days ago. It turns out not to be better than the $20 one. This could be related to a change that happened some time in the last week that seemed to make the model lazier.

Under a principled reading of copyright, a character's style or appearance should not be protected at all. The Constitution authorizes exclusivity only as a means "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," not to fence off cultural building blocks. Characters are ideas clothed in minimal expression, and ideas are supposed to remain free. Extending it to style or appearance criminalizes inspiration and imitation, both vital to the creative progress.

There is also no need for copyright to protect style when trademark law already handles the commercial side. Trademark law exists to prevent consumer confusion about the source of goods or entertainment, not to police creativity. Copyright, by contrast, exists to encourage the creation of new works. Mixing the two systems produces the worst outcome: censorship of reinterpretation with no public benefit. By allowing registration of character depictions, Congress and the Copyright Office has quietly transformed the protection of expression into the protection of concept, eroding the barrier between idea and form that once defined the system's fairness. Forbidding others to write new versions of Harry Potter or Sherlock Holmes stifles cultural dialogue. This kind of control limits creativity and weakens the public domain. Copyright law was meant to protect expression, not to freeze imagination. Limiting the reuse of character archetypes harms artistic development and public participation in culture.

If someone wishes to write about a wizard boy, a detective, or a talking mouse, they should be free to do so provided they do not mislead consumers through trademark misuse or copy the exact material. That balance preserves both artistic freedom and commercial clarity. Characters are part of the shared language of culture, and language must remain free for all.

1. Abuse employees
2. Get pushback
3. Say "toxic" means "not woke enough" to deflect blame and politicize it into a social issue
4. Watch the stock go up from short-sighted policies and woke-pushing finance funds
5. Profit!

A Hollywood producer buying an Israeli cyber-arms firm from a Luxembourg shell to sell zero-click exploits once blacklisted by Washington.You can almost hear the hum of obsolete servers in some rain-slick basement and the glow of a corporate logo reflected off a wet street. All we're missing is a burned-out hacker mumbling about "market forces" while patching code for a warlord's private AI and a former Ukrainian drone soldier hired out for his expertise. The strangest part is how banal it all feels. The cyberpunk future didn't crash through the window in chrome and fire, it took a call from Beverly Hills, filed with DECA, and quietly signed the paperwork.

This is exactly like a group of private investors acquiring a missile cruiser. In Russia I would believe it more easily.

The studies Iâ(TM)ve seen report little to no change in company profits after adopting the app. That is not the same as saying the technology adds nothing to the bottom line. In many cases, firms have reduced staff as expected with automation, while maintaining profit and production levels. Mathematically, that means output per remaining employee has increased, even if total profits havenâ(TM)t. The AI is improving efficiency, just not enough (yet) to create visible growth at the company level.

If the tech continues to advance, early adopters will already be positioned to benefit. And if it stagnates, trying it out still wonâ(TM)t cost much. Only if the ecosystem collapses and AI use cost grows enormously will this be a problem. Risk>Reward.

It looks like the thing to do is use the farm as long as it's profitable, then leave them in place and build a new farm next to it. Nature builds on nature. A big patch of scrub can attract insects and tie down moisture and sand, which can make it stable enough for something bigger to grow, and so on. You're not going to get a jungle without more rain but you can shrink deserts and build habitats and diversity.

I didn't mean it as a characterization of your post. I meant it as a reply.

Long, pointless rant about politics picking out the words psychologist, dysphoria, and self examination. Complaint about a misunderstanding of your post. Pedantry. In conclusion, personal insult.

Having your weapon a highly visible color has several advantages. In court it's proven if someone saw the gun: just ask "what color was it?" It's easier to find in the dark. It's easier for an adversary to see that you're armed. It has a slight tendency to combat a certain kind of person's irrational general fear of guns, in the courtroom and if you, God forbid, have to pull it out. You have a gun that's less escalatory and harder to lie about. In combat (and yes, guns are for stopping tyranny) it's a problem, but it's not all that hard to blacken a pink gun.

I'm all for bold ideas, but I agree with other posts: this steps well over the line. Growing human brain cells to run machines is grotesque. Once you start treating pieces of a human brain as hardware, you've already accepted that consciousness is just a resource to exploit. That's pure evil. Bioethicists have been warning about this for years. As brain organoids become more complex, we cannot rule out that they may develop rudimentary consciousness or experience. Ethical reviews of organoid research repeatedly flag questions around moral status, sentience, and whether we are torturing a "blob" that might feel. We do not yet have frameworks to protect dignity. Not of donors, not of hypothetical bio-entities. The burden of proof should lie with those claiming it is safe, not us. Until we resolve these foundational issues, this experiment belongs in thought, not practice. And why in all unholy dystopia did they pick human brain cells over monkeys?Shut it down.