You know, when I want to do an anonymous (no names are preserved) survey of security professionals, I have to go through multi-week or even multi-month IRB (Institutional Review Board) approval, explaining how I protect the data I collected and the subjects, etc. IRB members often have opinions on my survey questions and also on whether I am sufficiently clear about how and where the data is stored in the survey header.
And that's when I don't keep the names of my subjects nor do I collect anything personal about them. Personally, I don't know about all the extra paperwork for the underage subjects because my research doesn't touch that. So... did they fill out a big IRB form and got releases from all parents to perform a giant experiment? Did they properly explain and disclose all of the risks to the students if the experiment fails?

Maybe there is some pushback for people with such attitude?
I mean no offense -- shouldn't asylum seekers who feel this way go to another country which they don't consider vile and racist?

Yes, I believe this is where it's coming from, regardless of who actually did it.

My understanding is that this generally accounts for the diversity/representation gap between movies and TV shows. In movies, representation is either absent or very contained (like a throw away sentence that can be easily cut out in international release). Movies have to cater to many countries, including China. TV shows have nothing but representation because they are mostly targeting USA or maybe Europe and don't have to deal with all countries.

If I wanted to log into my MS account as soon as I get to a computer, I would have already upgraded to Windows 11.

So you are saying that Trump should have just threatened ABC behind the scenes and then everything would be ok?
My problem is not with the how this is executed but with the fact that the government is unduly influencing the media.

I don't think there is a University/College in the country that doesn't receive state support money in some form. Private is of course far less, but still significant.
I suppose only the local student receive state funding, but undergraduate students are often locals (vs graduate students).

100%, just like car emissions.
The difference (I think) is that you can have electricity prices vary from state to state. Different level of AI development from state to state seems impossible (and different level of AI use from state to state will also be tricky, if technically possible).
As an example, CA can outlaw certain types of AI in self-driving cars, but then how does that work at the state borders? Banned AI cars know not to cross the state boundary? There are state border checkpoints that audit the code in your car at the crossing?

Admittedly, I have not read the article, so very possible that it totally misinterprets the bill.
But I would consider the merits: Is it a good idea to allow states to regulate AI (whether it comes from R party or D party)?
Personally, I doubt that because I cannot think of a good reason to let a state regulate AI. What could it possibly achieve? But I'd be interested in counter arguments for why it is useful.

Yes, you are right about the hypocrisy. That checks out.
But the sheer idea that a state could regulate development of artificial intelligence is so laughable. That's not like control over education in your state or car emissions in your state.
I can't even think of a good analogy. Something both global and digital that's in no way tied to a particular physical location... Maybe similar to regulating pornography production in a state (and I don't mean performer work conditions which do have a physical tie to the state).

Yes.

No. Or maybe yes, but this is an impractical attitude. Democrats have tried running the "Vote for the non-Trump option" and this did not work. So even if true, this statement is a losing strategy on its own.

You say that like we only had one candidate in the last election. There were two (major) candidates on the ballot, both of whom got there through the magic of Democracy.

I agree with you 100%, but

1) We could all learn about how crappy their code was?

2) There may be some liability implications? (IANAL) For example, if there was an egregious/negligent security gap that could be used to hack user systems.

Are you saying that previous presidents could be prosecuted for official acts?
Because there are a lot of prior presidential acts (e.g., bombings or drone strikes) that say otherwise.

From what I gather, Britain pushed to end slavery in quite a few countries. According to a quick search, some countries (e.g., Spain, Portugal) agreed to end slavery but only for monetary compensation paid by Britain, while many others had to be fought by British patrols for decades.

I guess my question is -- are paper mills doing anything wrong?
There are more than a few researchers whose only contribution to published research is getting funding for the project. Is there a big difference between hiring a PostDoc to write papers or contracting a company?

Very good point -- thank you for mentioning it.

As opposed to researchers that churn out poor-quality manuscripts?
The whole point of peer-review is that only decent quality manuscripts will be accepted. And you will get a reputation soon enough if you keep submitting garbage.
It would be better to go after pay-for-play publishing venues. We have had a couple of faculty applicants who got pretty far in the hiring process until we realized what kind of publications they had on the CV.