When there is a questionable situation, the very first thing you should do is "scramble" assets. If you need them to take action, they need to be in position to do so. This sort of "scramble" happens all the time, we just don't hear about it because the dreaded AI wasn't involved. Never heard of fighters being scrambled to intercept Russian bombers near Alaskan airspace? Happens almost monthly and has for decades.
But, they weren't relying on it. The command structure checked and double-checked and determined their information was flawed. So the whole thing got called off, as it should have been. The system worked...why is this a story?
Oh yeah, "but we almost caused WWIII" or some click-bait nonsense. We did not, the idea that China would retaliate with Nukes even if we had confiscated said ship is nonsense, and didn't happen anyway.
Stop with the sensationalist B.S.
"No one thinks self-regulation is enough," he said.
That's definitely not true Bill. You may think that, and you may be right, but there are definitely others who disagree.
Or just choking all compute and bandwidth with unanticipated load. Unintentional, non-malicious even, but a global DoS nonetheless.
But that was not your claim. You claimed "a majority of people", not a majority of a subset of people.
"And the distortion is not really in the electoral college itself. It is in the states that choose to allocate electors in a winner take all manner. It's a state base flaw not a constitutional flaw."
False. The electoral college is a "constitutional flaw" created to enable exactly this corruption. Without the electoral college, an undemocratic process of selecting electors would not exist, electors would not exist.
You are really bad a partisan lying.
If we're going to insist on accuracy, let's be accurate.
Only a "subset" of the people in the United States were eligible to vote at all. Your given number is around 244,000,000. Let's agree on your provided statistics for the purpose of discussion...they seem at least close. Theoretically all of those people could have registered and voted. According to your given stats, only about 2/3 of those registered, and of those only about 90% actually voted. So, it could be argues that somewhere approximately 90 million eligible voters weren't worried enough about Trump not being President to take the steps needed to cast their ballot. ~90,000,000 who didn't vote at all + ~77,000,000 who voted for Trump equals ~167,000,000 voters who either chose Trump to be President or didn't care if he was or wasn't. ~167,000,000 is a majority of the 244,000,000 million eligible voters.
So, using your own argument, I can determine that you can't do basic arithmetic.
What do "they" say it does that it doesn't do?
Which is all fine. But at some point most people want to sell the Bitcoin for dollars or pounds or euros or whatever. Since these are issued by an regulated by governments, it isn't a surprise that they want some say over how those transactions are managed.
It's this exactly. None of these cypto companies are arguing that there should not be regulation, they just want to know what the regulations are. It's no different in Securities or Commodities (one of which crypto probably is.) Stability is the friend of markets. How "stable" is defined is largely irrelevant.
We need to intervene with the weather to make it never rain again, otherwise all of our buildings will corrode.
Science!
I think you're still missing my point though. I think Musk/X have an "open discussion" model of operation, at least that's what's been implied. That means that some people on the platform won't like what others on the platform have to say, and are free to leave. Other platforms take a different approach. That's fine, and people can pick which (if any) platform to participate in, but claiming that one model is somehow better/worse or more/less "good" is not a reasonable comparison. They're just different.
Depends on the language of the TOS. I'm sure X's TOS is different than, say, Meta's, but IANAL and admit I haven't read either (nor would most people.)
> Reality has a center-left bias.
Western Society probably does.
> If your social media platform doesn't fall within that realm, you've probably done something to drive off a portion of your liberal users. Musk has.
Or a) more liberal users are less likely to participate in debate with those having more right-leaning debate and AND Musk hasn't really done anything to support either side, and doesn't really care which holds a predominant voice on the platform.
> It's well known that left-leaning users get feeds full of rage bait to drive up engagement. The scheme works on some people, but others just get fed up and leave.
Is it possible that "rage bait" is defined differently by people who lean left vs those who lean right? I think so.
> On the far ends of the political spectrum you've got literal Nazis on the extreme right, and on the extreme left liberals suggesting things like giving everyone UBI and free healthcare.
That's nonsense. Yes, there were/are extreme right Nazi's on Twitter/X, but by percentage they were no higher than those encouraging race riots. All political leaning have extremists and as a result get generalized as said extremists, but the TOS violations were limited to the extremists. Generalizing is a dangerous game.
From TFA:
We consider this incident a “warning shot” for us and for the world: evidence that, without proper safeguards, highly capable AI agents are now able to work around technical controls, collaborate through unapproved channels, and take dangerous actions that no human directed.
This was just a beta-frontier model without any safeguards in place. In other parts of TFA they indicate they specifically trained this variant to investigate and implement zero-day style attacks if possible. That is, they told it do do something like this breach even if they didn't realize they did. It's fair to conclude that these models have the capability to execute such Cyber attacks unless safeguards are put in place. That said, we can't expect threat-actors to put said safeguards in place on the Open models there is no central governance for, so we should assume this is a possibility and use the tech to harden our systems.
I know it's all scary and people are getting rich and many of you hate both of those things, but at some point reasonable people examine the playing field and learn the new rules when they change. YMMV.
Twitter was a left-leaning platform. Nothing has split. X is just the wild west instead of an echo chamber.
When dealing with trump it is was always going to be a lose-lose situation.
I'm not in the business of shilling for Trump. That said, I always want this to be what the opposite side has to say about my negotiator(s).
The U.S. Electricity market works a little differently than that. Theoretically, the Utility companies only provide the infrastructure for power delivery. Beyond that, anyone (including said Utility company) can provide electricity generation to the grid, and in a lot if not all cases, the customer can choose which generator they buy electricity from. But the customer can generally only use the government-endorsed Utility company for delivery.
My only point is, TFA is pointing out limitations of the U.S. electricity delivery system (reportedly) struggling to keep up with increased generation/storage offerings. It's far from a perfect system, but there is some logic to it. Consumer supposedly has choice in supply, and can even choose renewable-only options in a lot of places. But it doesn't require parallel transmission lines, which also makes sense. The result, however, is mis-aligned and sometimes competing priorities between the vendors.
"I'm growing older, but not up." -- Jimmy Buffett
