They fact-checked constantly during the first half, which was a huge improvement over former debates. Honestly I thought this was better moderated than any previous debate involving Trump.
Harris campaign requested unmuted mics - it was Trump’s team that was worried about him making an ass of himself with interruptions. With that in mind they might be letting him talk because it’s what Harris wanted in the first place.
A lot of people are doing work that can be automated in part by AI, and there’s a good chance that they’ll lose their jobs in the next few years if they can’t figure out how to incorporate it into their workflow. Some people are indeed out of the workforce or in industries that are safe from AI, but that doesn’t invalidate the hype for the rest of us.
This is like saying that automobiles are overhyped because they can’t drive themselves. When I code up a new algorithm at work, I’m spending an hour or two whiteboarding my ideas, then the rest of the day coding it up. AI can’t design the algorithm for me, but if I can describe it in English, it can do the tedious work of writing the code. If you’re just using AI as a Google replacement, you’re missing the bigger picture.
My understanding is that there was no hard evidence and the witness did not wish to testify, so this was a plea deal to make him confess and give the victim closure. Still feels wrong given that he did confess, but if the alternative was no probation I guess this is better than nothing.
The way I see it a day might come when I have to explain to my kids what I did to try to make a better future for them. I could tell them I worked hard to put a roof over their head. I could tell them I changed my lifestyle to try to reduce my carbon footprint. If Trump wins I expect they’ll want to know what I did about that. I don’t have time to volunteer, but if $100 can help pay for an ad in a swing state and win Harris half a vote, that’s better than nothing. Then I can tell my kids I tried to protect their access to abortion, tried to slow down climate change, tried to depoliticize the Supreme Court, tried to strengthen our alliance with Europe, and tried to keep hate and bigotry from having a voice in our government.
For thousands of years the ruling class has tolerated the rest of us because they needed us for labor and protection. We’re approaching the first time in human history where this may no longer be the case. If any of us are invited to the AI utopia, I suspect it will only be to worship those who control it. I’m not sure what utility we’ll have to offer beyond that. I doubt they’ll keep us around just to collect UBI checks.
I’ve been trying to wrap my head around the unconditional support that the US has shown to Israel during this crisis. I understand why we must stand with our friends and allies. I understand that Israel has immense strategic value as an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” in the Middle East. I understand our desire to support democracies in the region. I understand that they have a right to defend their people. I understand that our support is necessary to keep things from cascading further out of hand. But what I don’t understand is how we can provide all this support and still have no leverage to ease the suffering of innocent Palestinians. Are we even capable of applying diplomatic pressure on Israel, or has our support become something more akin to an entitlement?
OP says you can sync memories both ways - easy solution is to just take turns.
One clone so that I can be a stay-at-home dad without losing my income. Finally finish grad school and fix up the house. Show my kid the world when they get old enough to appreciate it. Get a second job once they start school - something to get me outside, or working with people face-to-face. That would be amazing.
Sometimes I wonder if international laws against genocide have done more harm than good. When we see atrocities occurring where it’s strategically inconvenient to intervene we look the other way or squabble over legal definitions - anything to excuse ourselves from getting involved. The results are no different than if these laws did not exist, except that we are also complicit in denial, which in itself is a terrible thing.
It’s certainly possible that Meta has a plan to destroy the fediverse with Threads, but I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility that they’re just doing this because they can. If their plan was to take over the fediverse from within, and that plan hinged on instances not defederating out of caution, then it’s off to a poor start. I might just be totally naive but this feels more like them testing the water by opening their doors to the fediverse - I don’t know if they know what happens next.
Private insurance used to offer flood insurance like 100 years ago, but to stay in business they had to raise premiums to a point where no one could realistically afford it (which is to say that living in a flood zone is not financially feasible for most people). The government had to step in with their own flood insurance program, which was tied to regulation intending to minimize the risk of flooding in at-risk zones so that premiums could remain affordable. Even these measures haven’t been sufficient to keep the program from running out of money, and we’ve been subsidizing it with taxpayer bailouts to keep it afloat.
All this is to say that private insurance is literally incapable of insuring against flood damage, so you can’t blame them for any of this. If you want to blame someone, blame Trump for rolling back standards that would have allowed FEMA to consider climate change in their risk models.