Mudguard

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

You can either tax them significantly past that point in terms of consumption or require them to purchase power allowances (similar to water rights or other things) and have them have civil or criminal penalties for going over. 

As to how it would affect other companies - there is only so much power and resources to go around; this would mean that the biggest fish would not be able to simply take all the resources for computation that exist and not let anyone else work on them. 

The only thing this appears to address is the amount of energy used by the industry, which is an odd concern to me at this time.  This has zero chance or reason to be implemented as a regulation right now.  It’s a solution to a nonexistent problem that only serves to handicap domestic AI development.

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Ah, okay. It would potentially regulate the industry in terms of making them actually pick and choose interesting problems instead of just throwing AI at everything, but it certainly isn't going to make it not abusive or dangerous by itself. 

This doesn't seem workable in practice, unless the entire industry was centrally planned by the government.  If the cap was placed at the industry level, and one company just decided to consume as much as it wanted, how would that affect other companies?

35 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

AI chips and systems are very power hungry - very similar to bitcoin, which makes sense given that they, too, are doing massive amounts of math calculations as fast as they can. 

That said it ain't gonna stop China or anything like that.

Yes, but I don't see how you would practically regulate the industry based on power consumption.  It's not clear to me what the ultimate goal of the regulation is.  

1 hour ago, Ran said:

I saw an interesting proposal that the only thing that really needs regulation is what share of energy AIs are allowed to consume in relation to all other non-AI use.

Do you have a link?  What are they trying to accomplish by regulating the energy used?  How do they propose to implement this regulation?  This doesn't seem a practical solution.

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

My brother's response to this news:

... it would appear that the latest management, that is now leaving with their millions, really didn't have clue on what to do to fix the issues.  They are having quality audits of the entire 737 Max assembly process with the FAA observing.  However, I'm not so sure the FAA has good skill sets left after the agency has been stuffed with political appointees that really don't know the industry.  Only time will tell if they can find a skilled person that understands how to build aircraft to lead the company.

This is just killing his generation of former Boeing engineers. But they've been seeing this in process for a very long time now.

Very sad to hear all this.  It's a massive waste of engineering talent.  Something needs to shake up the airline industry.  It's gotten very stagnant for a very long time now.  The way that government contracts are awarded, at least in the past with cost plus type contracts, just rewards waste.

Reminds me of the space industry, which really hadn't moved significantly forward for decades until SpaceX came along.  I know Musk is problematic for many reasons, but objectively, SpaceX has been a catalyst for the space industry.  All these airline manufacturing companies need a real competitor that threatens to put them out of business to force industry change.

In the CNN article I linked above, there was this tidbit:

Quote

Earlier this month, the US embassy in Russia said it was “monitoring reports that extremists have imminent plans to target large gatherings in Moscow,” including concerts. The embassy warned US citizens to avoid large gatherings.

In a speech Tuesday to Russia’s federal security agency, Putin called the embassy’s warnings about potential terror attacks in Moscow “provocative,” saying “these actions resemble outright blackmail and the intention to intimidate and destabilize our society.”

So at the very least, Russia was aware that the US warned it's citizen's in Russia about a potential attack.  Putin's speech several days ago didn't age well.  Doubt that Russian media will point this out.  I googled a bit to try and find confirmation of this speech, and one website that was linked was to a Russian news source from the day of the speech that confirmed the story.  I'm wondering if those Russian articles will get scrubbed.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/22/europe/crocus-moscow-shooting/index.html

Isis claiming responsibility for the Moscow attack.  Don't know whether ISIS has a history of claiming credit for things they didn't do, but ISIS wasn't at the top of my list as potential suspects for this.

ETA: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-68642036?src_origin=BBCS_BBC

BBC live report thread has some interesting details.

Quote

Report: Islamic State claims responsibility

Reuters news agency is reporting that Islamic State have claimed responsibility for the attack on its Telegram channel.

The report has not been independently verified. The group, also known as ISIS, has carried out attacks in a number of countries, however BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera notes that the group has at times in the past claimed responsibility for attacks that it had nothing to do with.

On 7 March, Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) said it prevented an attack on a synagogue in Moscow that was being planned by an Islamic State cell.

The FSB said attackers opened fire during the attempted arrest and were "neutralized by return fire", but few other details were given about the alleged plot.

I'm not familiar with Russia's problems with ISIS on its own soil, but this makes it seem more likely that ISIS really was responsible, even though in the past ISIS has claimed credit for attacks it didn't do.

14 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The US issued a warning two weeks ago that "extremists" were planning terrorist attacks inside Russia, including targeting concert halls. It went under the radar at the time but has come up again now.

Russian news sources saying that up to 40 are believed dead.

Ukraine has issued a denial that it was involved, and the US concurs there is no intelligence chatter supporting Ukrainian involvement. Even Russian news and government sources have hesitate to point the finger at Ukraine. This seems to have genuinely come out of nowhere to Russia (but possibly not US intelligence).

I assume that the US shared their concerns and at least some of their evidence with Russia about the potential terrorist attack, especially if they were going to warn US citizens in Russia of this risk.  There was a large terrorist attack a little while ago in Iran, I think, where the US claimed that they shared intel with Iran that a potential terrorist attack was imminent.

Quote

NBC News on Friday announced that it had hired Ronna McDaniel, the former Republican National Committee chair who has repeatedly attacked the network and its journalists, assailed the news media as “fake news” and promoted false claims around the 2020 vote, as an on-air commentator ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

“It couldn’t be a more important moment to have a voice like Ronna’s on the team,” Carrie Budoff Brown, senior vice president of politics at NBC News, said in a memo to staff.

McDaniel exited the RNC earlier this month after leading the organization since 2016.

During her time as chair, McDaniel repeatedly attacked the press, which has become increasingly popular in Republican circles over the last several years as Donald Trump demonizes journalists and news institutions.

McDaniel echoed many such attacks, labeling the press as “fake news” and calling the media “corrupt.” At times, she even targeted NBC News and MSNBC with dishonest attacks.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/22/media/ronna-mcdaniel-nbc/index.html

This seems like a bad idea to me.  What is NBC News going to do if she continues to behave as one of Trump's mouthpieces?  Do they think that adding McDaniel is going to attract Fox News viewers to their channel?  I think it's more likely that they are going to just alienate their own viewers.

15 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

 

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's also way too early and too easy to reach for that. Terrorism within Russia is quite common.  

 

Also I'm not really sure Putin really feels he needs a false flag.

Yeah, way too early to assert that it's a false flag operation.  Unless I'm missing something, no one has been blamed yet for the attack, at least not in the live report thread that you linked.

I really liked the books, liked the Tencent adaptation, and so far, I've liked the first few episodes that I watched of the Netflix adaptation.

The Tencent adaptation, which also covers just the first book, is more faithful to the books, but I'm OK with the changes in the Netflix adaptation.  The first book is the most straightforward to adapt on screen.  Very curious about how they will adapt the second two books.  The final two books span a huge amount of time.

Damn, this story has taken a sad turn.  Very young to find out you have cancer.

22 minutes ago, Week said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/22/trump-social-dwac-stock-falls-after-merger-approved.html

11% drop after the merger was approved. ~$34M in the red last year -- this should be a penny stock* by the time his stock unlocks. 

*like his previous public DJT stock

He claimed he wasn't her type as well (as if that's at all relevant) despite confusing her for his wife.

This isn't going to drop to a penny stock in 6 months.  Losing 34 million as an early stage startup is nothing.  Trump has enough rabid followers that the platform will have millions of core users that won't abandon the platform anytime soon.  He's almost certainly going to be able to cash out for hundreds of millions, and maybe even billions over time, if he wants.  The hard part will be unloading so much stock over a short amount of time without cratering the price.

2 hours ago, Denvek said:

Yeah, even when she went in they were saying she wouldn't return to "work" until after Easter, which is what makes the Mothers Day photoshop a massive own goal - they could have just kept pointing back at that statement and emphasising privacy, and while the circle-jerk of conspiracy theories would still have happened they wouldn't have got this big and crazy.

Assuming that she is actually fine, I think that this whole situation is hilarious.  There's so many depressing things going on, with wars in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, that this story has been a good break, and I'm enjoying reading about all the crazy conspiracy theories.

At this point, I'm assuming that they are either having a laugh, or are just so disgusted by the tabloids that they are refusing to engage out of spite and/or principle.  They are in a unique situation where bad press doesn't really impact their "jobs," it's not like they are getting fired over this, and doesn't impact their compensation as royals.  They largely don't need to give a fuck.  Assuming that there isn't a scandal, this will all blow over and be forgotten after she finally makes an official return to public life.

I'm wondering whether Kate and William are having a laugh at all this.  I think they've previously stated that she would resume duties after Easter.  Is she obligated to quash these rumors during her recovery period?  Or can she just grab some popcorn and have a good chuckle?

Good stuff. These rabbit holes go deep.

I have to admit, for a while I couldn't understand why people were making such a big deal about a photoshopped picture.  I had no idea about all the underlying conspiracy theories going around.  Madness!  For the record, I think she is still alive, and just wants some privacy during her recovery period.

6 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

https://www.facebook.com/reel/342790462083346

That's the 7TB hard-drive, with all our films, photos, music, files etc on it - she's ripped out the power cable from the wall, and the USB cable from the TV - both of which are destroyed (hopefully she hasn't destroyed the USB input).

One of the dumbbell weights is destroyed as well.

 

4th dog, 10th if you include childhood. I've never known one this destructive. Every single time they're left alone in the house, something is destroyed, however hard we try to protect stuff.

 

I refuse to crate her, especially with Beli's past. Any other suggestions?

Have you been able to catch her in the act of destroying something?  If not, correcting her when she is actually doing the act works way better than trying to correct her after the fact.

If you have and that didn’t work, you can try getting her some toys to destroy.  

9 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I kind of anticipate a historic low for turnout as pecentage of elgible voters.

To be clear, I'm still voting.  I'm just leaving some sections blank.

3 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

What if it was Super Tuesday and the public just gave a big middle finger back and said WE DONT WANT ANY OF THESE SHITTY CANDIDATES

I'm leaving my choice for presidential candidate blank for the primary.  Doesn't matter right now anyway.  The US Senate race in CA is interesting though.

2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

The article you quoted gives one issue. Free speech (esp. political kind) is extremely highly protected in the US (arguably overprotected, but that's another topic for another day). Smith also presumably would've needed to actually charge a few of the (yet!) unindicted conconspirators, you can see the hassle it causes Willis in GA. Smith aim was to get a conviction before a General Election, which he still might get btw.* despite the supremes best/worst efforts. If he pulls it off power to him, and I will grant him the honory title of horse.

*I saw the other day, that the Smith is prepared to push forward with the trial despite being close to the election, because his office is arguing, that they are not bringing up new charges, but rather see through a running legal process (thus not a violation of DOJ policy). Chutkan is apparently onboard with that idea and has already cancelled her European vacation plans, so she'd be available. How much time she gives Orange doofus to prepare is within her discretion. She said 80 days (?) or something like that (as she did not account for the supremes intervention). There's nothing stopping her from shortening that a bit, so the trial can go forward. A lot of that is obviously speculation. But Smith is not Garland and has thus far displayed the spine of a horse.

Yeah, Smith appears to be a very meticulous and aggressive prosecutor, which is another reason I doubt he would have dropped a charge that he felt confident that he could prove.  Smith is throwing the book at Trump.  Also, the insurrection charge under 18 USC 2383 is probably the only charge that would disqualify Trump from holding office.  Even if Trump is convicted on all the other charges, he can still hold office, and if he wins, presumably could pardon himself from jail.  No way he would drop such a consequential charge if he had the ability to prove it.

Also, from what I understand, no one has been charged under section 2383.  None of the rioters that have been sent to jail, and there have been dozens if not hundreds of them, have been charged for insurrection.  Why not?  There isn't the same time pressures for these defendants.  It's because proving insurrection on these facts is not the slam dunk that people think it is.  

2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Yeah, they were wrong. But my understanding is that their assumptions were based on how good and thorough the court of appeals ruling was. They weren’t guessing blindly; their argument, as they explained it, was based on how it’s supposed to work irt SCOTUS a) deciding to take a case and b) overturning a lower court’s decision etc. So they were wrong b/c they expected a very political court w/ corruption issues to rule based on the law instead of based on politics. 

I can’t read it b/c of the paywall, so I don’t know what else is in the article. But even the quote above doesn’t make it clear that the case was not strong enough to be filed. It talks of avoiding have the focus of the case be on “inflammatory and occasionally ambiguous” things Trump said. That alone doesn’t suggest that the case was too difficult, but it does imply that it would be harder and take longer. Just my 2p of course.

Dropping a charge of course simplifies the case, but I haven't seen a good explanation why the insurrection charge is more complicated to prove than the other charges.  What are the elements in proving an insurrection charge that makes it so complicated?  Can you cite something that supports this view? 

All the analysis of the public evidence that I've seen suggests that the evidence has ambiguities that a defense could use to support their case.  The public speech Trump made wasn't going to be enough.  Smith needed additional evidence that Trump wanted that mob to storm the capital and disrupt the proceedings.  As far as I'm aware, there wasn't any smoking gun found.  If Smith had that type of evidence, the case would be a slam dunk and I really doubt he would omit the insurrection charge.  Even if the additional charge would lengthen the trial by a week or two, and that's very generous given the overlapping facts, that wasn't going to make or break the timing.

2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Whether you believe it or not. But most legal commentators say, that the insurrection charges/case would've been much more complicated and time consuming than the more streamlined one Smith filed. Closest he comes is iirc Interfering with an official procedure [counting of the votes].

Willis RICO case in Georgia is closer to what an insurrection indictment for Smith would've looked like. You can see how long Willis needed to file charges (with a lot of commentators getting impatient with her handling of the case). And she had a headstart over Smith.

Had Garland appointed him on day 1, he might have tried to file the more ambitious insurrection case. Would've, could've, should've. But we are, where we are. And Rod knows what the supremes would've said to an insurreciton charge.

Take what you hear from legal commentators with a grain of salt.  Most of them recently thought that the SC wouldn't take up the immunity case, and they were all wrong.  Unless Smith has publicly commented on his reasoning for not filing a charge on insurrection, or the analyst claims to have inside information on internal deliberations, it's pure speculation.

Also, plenty of other commentators believe the reason was tied to the difficulty of proving the allegation.  For example, from the NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/04/us/politics/trump-indictment-jack-smith-charges.html

Quote

That choice dovetails with Mr. Smith’s decision not to charge Mr. Trump with inciting an insurrection or seditious conspiracy — potential charges the House committee recommended. By eschewing them, he avoided having the case focus on the inflammatory but occasionally ambiguous remarks Mr. Trump made to his supporters as they morphed into a mob, avoiding tough First Amendment objections that defense lawyers could raise.

27 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

He did appoint Smith, only one year later than he should have. 
And I have no way of knowing whether this is true, but I’ve heard more than one legal analyst say he only appointed Smith when Trump announced he was going to run for president, and they said that indicates Garland wouldn’t have done much at all if Trump decided not to run. And if true, that is outrageous and further evidence that Trump was and is receiving special treatment. 
Oh and btw, the same legal analysts said Smith left insurrection out not b/c the case wasn’t strong enough but rather to try and make it more straightforward and quicker. That “quicker” bit has already backfired since all legal voices speaking including super conservative ones said SCOTUS shouldn’t have taken it, that they should have let the court of appeals ruling stand. 
 

I can believe that Garland wouldn't have appointed Smith if Trump didn't run. 

But I don't buy the idea that Smith didn't bring the insurrection charge because he wanted to streamline the case.  A lot of the facts for the charges he did file concern the events of Jan 6th, so there's already a large overlap between the insurrection charge and the other charges he filed.  I think part of the problem is that there is so little caselaw around this charge, in addition to the elements of insurrection not being well defined, that he would need overwhelming evidence of insurrection before he would feel confident enough to bring a charge.  And I don't think the evidence is close to overwhelming.  It's certainly arguable, but that's a long way from a very strong case.

58 minutes ago, Many-Faced Votary said:

18 U.S. Code § 2383 was passed during the Civil War, prior to the Fourteenth Amendment. It is not a mode of enforcement; it was written, in historical context, as a precursor to Section III of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The sheer notion that a Constitutional Amendment requires separate enforcement is itself enough to change it from the supreme law of the land to something constrained by politics and bound by political will. Saying that Section III is not self-executing is already enough to make it meaningless, which is what the five justices in the majority wanted.

By the way, the Trump v. Anderson ruling is so sweeping that it invites arguments that the Department of Justice filing suit on that law would not disqualify Trump from federal office. Make no mistake, this will be the first thing argued in such circumstances, as SCOTUS fully expected. Instead, he will have to be explicitly barred by Congress to pass muster.

I also question the thinking that the most feckless Attorney-General in the history of the country will actually attempt to convict Trump of insurrection.

I didn't get this impression from reading the opinion.  Conviction under 2383 would bar Trump from from holding office, and this was even conceded by Trump's attorney's during oral argument, with the caveat that Trump's attorney claimed that Trump was immune from prosecution.  So depending on what happens in the parallel immunity case, Trump could still be blocked from holding office under 2383 if the SC rules against his immunity claim.

Unfortunately, the charge was not brought, so this is a moot point.  Also, Garland appointed Jack Smith as special counsel, and from all indications, Smith has had full discretion and authority to bring the insurrection charge under 2383, but presumably felt like the case wasn't strong enough to his standards.