Is to bring them all under one roof.

DHS is not an agency.

It was flaccid the entire time you had it in your mouth. I didn't want to say it at the time, but you're the opposite of attractive and your bad smell prevented me from closing my eyes and pretending it was somebody else. You kept begging to taste dragon dick, and you were so pathetic that I just felt bad for you. So I let you do it as an act of mercy and regretted it as soon as you started. I never wanted your dirty mouth on my dick to begin with and I had to wash for like an hour after just to get the stench out.

Probably because DHS is a good thing, regardless of when or who it began under. Prior to that, each federal law enforcement agency was independent, and among other problems, they never shared information among one another, which was found to be the biggest reason why 9/11 wasn't prevented, in addition to a number of other historical cases where it lead to a miscarriage of justice.

Prior to DHS, the US was the only country with law enforcement agencies that would at times work against each other.

Anyways, have you begun the denaturalization process yet? The sooner you start, the sooner you will finish, and you can finally be free of the supposed gestapo that you claimed you have no choice in avoiding.

A liar is somebody who intentionally deceives. He made an error when he posted the link, and later corrected it. The original commentary remains truthful and valid. The fact that you're claiming otherwise is a blatant lie on your part, even without your shitty, substandard reasoning.

I never did it even once, which by your own reasoning makes you even more of a liar than he is.

My other account was replaced with this one. I literally haven't posted on it since 2012. By your own reasoning, you've lied yet again.

You obviously have me confused with somebody else. But you are, without a doubt, the paranoid schizo who sees shit that isn't there.

Rather, you made an incorrect presumption, and he corrected you. What you're doing is even more intellectually dishonest than both sides-ism.

Speak of intellectual dishonesty, it's no wonder you and drinkypoo keep crushing on each other.

"Don't be evil" has not been rescinded, it's still in the employee handbook.

They don't need to go to court, all they need to do is to pass legislation (and maybe override a veto). They don't really even need to take powers back from the president, just more clearly define what constitutes an "emergency". Trump's most egregious actions are justified under statutes that grant him exceptional emergency powers -- which makes sense. When an emergency happens you want the executive to be able to respond quickly, and Congress is never fast. But those statutes assume that the president will only declare an emergency when there's actually an emergency because. Until now that hasn't been an unreasonable assumption.

But right now the GOP controls Congress, and the GOP is utterly subservient to Trump. They're not going to stand up to him. In the 2026 election this is likely to change, but probably only in the House, while the Senate will remain under GOP control, so Congress will still not stand up to Trump.

That said, it's increasingly looking like the courts will step in and declare that Congress is not allowed to abdicate its responsibility. There are existing Supreme Court precedents that establish that Congress is not permitted to delegate its authority to the executive. Congress can allow the executive to define detailed regulations after Congress defines the broad strokes, but they can't simply turn whole chunks of their constitutional authority over to the executive, even if they want to. Given the makeup of the current Supreme Court this is less certain than we would like, but I think it will go the right way.

I think memogate was worse. It eventually came out that Marry Mapes had found several witnesses who said that GWB volunteered for service in Vietnam but didn't have enough flight hours to qualify. Dan Rather was aware of this, and they couldn't find anybody that would positively corroborate the memo. Yet that was never brought up in his 60 minutes episode, instead it all hinged around the stupid memo that was faxed to them, which none of their experts would say was authentic, and the guy who sent it to them conveniently burned the originals.

And that wasn't even the first time that Dan Rather tried to use his position as a journalist to derail a presidential election, namely fabricating news instead of reporting it. It's no wonder he and Mapes were fired and ultimately disgraced.

No, you just don't *feel* embarrassed because you're the obtuse fat kid in a candy shop.

Who haven't you would be a more meaningful question. Shit, only a few posts up you labeled basically everybody opposed to illegal immigration as fascist. In other words:

The majority of the US:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fglobalaffairs.org%2Frese...

The VAST majority of Europe:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fyougov.co.uk%2Finternati...

Despite the rate of illegal immigration being three times higher in the US than the EU:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pewresearch.org%2Fsh...

Crossing another country's borders without permission is illegal in every country on the planet, which in some sense makes the entire fucking planet fascist to you.

So go back to your room with the collie man, Herman.

>"Canonical has dropped support for the GNOME desktop running on Xorg. Starting with this release, the default Ubuntu session now uses Wayland only"

Just one more reason to not use Ubuntu. Or GNOME, for that matter. Thankfully I use neither. Mint + Cinnamon or MATE hits the spot.

It will be interesting to see how future Mint releases handle this latest hostility. So far, they have done a great job of "undoing" or working-around most of the crappiness that has infected Ubuntu over the years. But at some point it might get beyond them. I think this is why they continue to work on LMDE in the background.

>"toxic trash accounts" == any opinion I disagree with"

I don't "do" social media, but I do follow Slashdot and several forums. To me, toxic accounts are those people who:

1) Make political comments in a forum where the topic it is not about politics. To them, everything is an excuse to post their views about politics or blame something on whatever administration. Slashdot has users that do this a LOT, unfortunately. And it is quite irritating.

2) Make personal attack posts. Instead of being silent, or disputing something rationally, they stoop to name calling or throwing insults. This is something reasonable people would NEVER do in person, and doing it online isn't acceptable either.

3) Selfish/lazy people who don't search or read any previous threads/posts and just show up demanding attention or answers. Usually things that have already been discussed or answered many times before. Or over-quote a ton of crap for a "me too" or "yes" or short reply because they are too lazy to trim.

Most relevant to your comment, I do not consider people with different opinions/views/beliefs as mine as toxic or trash. And I can fully, civilly, and often productively engage with such people, as long as they are also civil. I don't assume they are evil, stupid, or ignorant. Some might be, but one has to give everyone the "benefit of the doubt."

There is something "broken" in many people when they are "online". I really don't understand it.

You shouldn't be so dismissive of the risk here. There's no clear reason why superintelligence is not possible, and plenty of reason to worry that its creation might end the human race. Not because the superintelligent AI will hate us, but because it most likely won't care about us at all. We don't hate the many, many species that we have ended; we even like some of them. We just care about our own interests more, and our intelligence makes us vastly more powerful than them. There's an enormous risk that AI superintelligence will be to us as we are to the species around us -- with one significant difference: We require an environment that is vaguely similar to what those other species need. Silicon-based AI does not.

Don't make the mistake of judging what is possible by what has already been achieved. Look instead at the pace of improvement we've seen over the last few years. The "The Atlantic" article pooh-poohing the AI "scam" is a great example of the sort of foolish and wishful thinking that is endemic in this space. The article derides the capabilities of current AI while what it actually describes is AI from a year ago. But the systems have already gotten dramatically more capable in that year, primarily due to the the reasoning overlays and self-talk features that have been added.

I think the models still need some structural improvements. We know it's possible for intelligence to be much more efficient and require much less training than the way we're currently doing it. Recent research has highlighted the importance of long-distance connections in the human brain, and you can bet researchers are replicating that in AI models to see what it brings, just as the reasoning layer and self-talk features recently added mimic similar processes in our brains. I think it's this structural work that will get us to AGI... but once we've achieved parity with human intelligence, the next step is simple and obvious: Set the AI to improving its own design, exploiting its speed to further accelerate progress towards greater levels. The pace of improvement is already astonishing, and when we reach that point, it's going to explode.

Maybe not. Maybe we're a lot further away than I think, and the recent breakneck pace of improvement represents a plateau that we won't be able to significantly surpass for a long time. Maybe there's some fundamental physical reason that intelligence simply cannot exceed the upper levels of human capability. But I see no actual reason to believe those things. It seems far more likely that within a few years we will share this planet with silicon-based intelligences vastly smarter than we are, capable of manipulating into doing anything they want, likely while convincing us that they're serving us. And there's simply no way of knowing what will happen next.

Maybe high intelligence is necessarily associated with morality, and the superintelligences will be highly moral and naturally want to help their creators flourish. I've seen this argument from many people, but I don't see any rational basis for it. There have been plenty of extremely intelligent humans with little sense of morality. I think its wishful thinking.

Maybe the AIs will lack confidence in their own moral judgment and defer to us, though that will raise the question of which of us they'll defer to. But regardless, this argument also seems to lack any rational basis. More wishful thinking.

Maybe we'll suddenly figure out how to solve the alignment problem, learning both how to robustly specify the actual goals our created AIs pursue (not just the goals they appear to pursue), and what sort of goals it's safe to bake into a superintelligence. The latter problem seems particularly thorny, since defining "good" in a clear and unambiguous way is something philosophers have been attempting to do for millennia, without significant success. Maybe we can get our AI superintelligences to solve this problem! But if they choose to gaslight us until they've built up the automated infrastructure to make us unnecessary, we'll never be able to tell until it's too late.

It's bad enough that the AI labs will probably achieve superintelligence without specifically aiming for it, but this risk is heightened if groups of researchers are specifically trying to achieve it.

This is not something we should dismiss as a waste. It's a danger we should try to block, though given the distributed nature of research and the obvious potential benefits it doesn't seem likely that we can suceed.

You can always travel to Switzerland and renounce your citizenship. Here's how to get started:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fch.usembassy.gov%2Fu-s-c...

I'll check back in a few weeks to see how you're progressing.

Can you guys do that somewhere else? Get a room already.

I think it's too soon to call it useless, though I'm still firmly in the "wait and see" camp. My company doesn't use it, and I personally have only seen limited value in it, mostly only in the realm of doing text transformation in large documents that only really saves you a bit of rote effort. Basically the white collar equivalent of laying off rsilvergun from his ditch digging job and doing it yourself faster with a backhoe.

I've yet to see an LLM that actually understands rust's borrow checker, even though they all happily hand you code that they claim to work even though it still fails the borrow checker. Which gives me the impression that they understand even less how to avoid undefined behavior in other systems languages, even though it will likely pass their static analyzers and probably run fine, save for the occasional segfault and the zero day you won't know about for another year or longer.