You also have to consider a ( I would argue large ) percentage of those evangelists are simply lying for financial gain. They see profit, or at least reduced costs, and quite simply don't give a shit about customer experience or anything like that.
I think there’s a lot of that dream — note how many of them became AI experts after striking out in cryptocurrency — but also a huge undercurrent of desperation. The rich guys who run most of the economy have made it clear that they want mass layoffs and that LLMs are the tool they’ll use to get there, so these guys are hoping that if they get on board early enough they’ll be the people doing it to everyone else rather than the targets. I’m not sure how successful that’ll be but it’s somewhat understandable how people might find themselves thinking that’s the best option available in the current economy.
Yes? That's a very important piece of information, and I hope would be a thing a doctor asks, especially if there are concerns about weight or nutrition.
She's not there about her weight, though. I highly encourage you to talk to women about their experiences here.
The weight thing was not the key aspect of my original comment. They chastised my wife for continuing to give my daughter whole milk while being underweight, but did not make similar comments to me. That was the point.
For women, their pains and problems are far too often whisked away by hand waving and "it's hormones and periods" and serious issues are often overlooked. Very little has changed in that area over the last twenty years.
How is that useless? You adding the warning tells me everything I need to know.
Either you generated it with AI, in which case I can happily skip it, or you _don't know_ if AI was used, in which case you clearly don't care about what you produce, and I can skip it.
The only concern then is people who use AI and don't apply this warning, but given how easy it is to identify AI generated materials you just have to have a good '1-strike' rule and be judicious with the ban hammer.
Because you have to be able to prove it wasn't AI when the law is tested, and keeping records and proof you didn't use AI is going to be really difficult, if at all possible. For little people having fun, unless you poke the wrong bear, it won't matter. But for companies who are constantly the target of lawsuits, expect there to be a new field of unlabeled AI trolling comparable to patent trolling or similar.
We already see this with the California label, it get's applied to things that don't cause cancer because putting the label on is much cheaper than going through to the process to prove that some random thing doesn't cause cancer.
If the government showed up and claimed your comment was AI generated and you had to prove otherwise, how would you?
"One regulation was kinda bad, so we should never regulate anything again."
Good god, this is pathetic. Do you financially gain from AI or do you think it's hard to prove someone didn't use it? Like this is the bare minimum and you're throwing temper tantrums...
The onus will be on the AI companies pushing these wares to follow regulations. If it makes it harder for the end user to use these wares, well too bad so sad.
>"One regulation was kinda bad, so we should never regulate anything again."
Please don't misrepresent what someone says. That does not lead to constructive dialog.
I gave a question challenging a specific way to regulate a specific thing, to indicate it is challenging. This is not the same as dismissing all regulations.
Also, please avoid the personal mentions.
>The onus will be on the AI companies pushing these wares to follow regulations.
That wasn't the challenge. The raised issue isn't AI companies labeling things AI. The given example included them very much following the regulation.
Seeing as how this article is talking about the deportation of US citizens, I'm going to question what exactly you mean by "here illegally".
Expanding the argument: I've just decided that you are illegally, and will thus be deported. As there is no due process, my word is law, have fun wherever you end up I literally do not care.
Does that seem fair? And before arguing "well this wouldn't happen, I'm not here illegally", again, this is an article about the deportation of US citizens. Children no less.
But their parents aren’t. Parents can be deported. So let’s imagine they did that. We’d have an article how cruel they stole / kidnapped a child from their parents. Would that be better?
Having a child doesn’t automatically provide a legal cover for staying and not getting deported. Maybe that’s a risk the parents didn’t know about?
No, that is a false dilemma. the right (and constitutional) thing to do is give all these people the due process and access to legal representation that they are entitled to, and work out a legal solution to all these conflicting concerns.
read the habeas petition for VMS (the two year old). The child has a US citizen relative and the father seems to have transferred provisional rights of custody to them.
> The child has a US citizen relative and the father seems to have transferred provisional rights of custody to them.
Right, I think that's the issue here it's not that the parents should be automatically allowed to say, it's that they were not given a chance in court to allow for that process - to find a relative.
There is a complication in the case because the provisional custody was canceled then renewed and transferred to Trish Mack.
> Also on April 22, 2025, V.M.L.’s father executed a Provisional Custody by Mandate under Louisiana Revised Statutes § 9:951, temporarily “delegat[ing] the provisional custody of” his two daughters to his U.S. citizen sister-in-law, who also lives in Baton Rouge, LA. The Mandate was notarized by a valid notary public in the state of Louisiana
> On April 24, 2025, the mandatary named in the Provisional Custody by Mandate terminated the agreement for personal reasons,
> V.M.L.’s father and Next Friend Petitioner Trish Mack executed a new notarized Provisional Custody by Mandate, delegating custodial authority to Ms. Mack
That sounds like something where due process is supposed to come into play. The best of a series of bad alternatives are worked out in a steady manner by a court system, rather than a hopped up racist at the border bragging about the president being in their corner.
I'm all right with changing that rule - anchor babies means we get two people and one them is brand new. Considering people are the most valuable resource, I think we should take all the potential anchors possible - let's give both parents citizenship automatically if they are parents of a citizen.
Let's fast track Aunts and Uncles too - maybe we can get the whole family.
> let's give both parents citizenship automatically if they are parents of a citizen.
Yeah that might work. Wonder if there is any legislative effort on that front. I guess with the current congress it won't happen, so perhaps nobody is trying.
What's the point in arguing about what-ifs? The children were deported. In real life. There's no need for hypothetical scenarios, focus on the actual point of the article and thread.
I am not sure what you're arguing for? Take the children away in real life and hand off to a random foster family. Sometimes they can stay with aunts or uncles. Sometimes there are no aunts or uncles.
> There's no need for hypothetical scenarios, focus on the actual point of the article and thread.
Ok, so what should we discuss about the article? To help the conversation move along it's easier to say "here is what I think" as opposed to tell someone "don't think or say that!" and leave it a that.
US citizen father wasn't allowed to take custody of his US citizen child, who was subsequently removed from the country to a place where the child presumably is not a citizen.
That's where court proceedings to establish custody would be necessary. But regardless, it's illegal to deport a citizen, especially to a third country where they are not a citizen.
> What's the point in arguing about what-ifs? The children were deported.
Anyone arguing in what-ifs agrees with the deportation but can't be that blatantly racist on here. Ignoring this specific case allows them to muddy the waters. Anyone playing Devil's Advocate consistently are usually part of the devil's party.
"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing ... through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust ... and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
We can only guess about the "prompt reporting of the issue", but from what I've seen and heard I'm willing to put money on the fact that, no, this was not reported.
If you talk to someone with a law degree (judge, lawyer, whatever), they will tell you that "gross negligence" is very high barrier to cross in US law. Most people misunderstand that. It is very unlikely that any of the people in that chat group would be found grossly negligent, especially for their first mistake. Please do not read that last sentence as an apology or excuse for their behaviour; they should be reprimanded for it.
"The person predicted the impact could extend beyond Congress: “If you’re Google or Meta or Apple – you’re thinking, ‘Do I really want to use these firms?’ That could make it harder to work with the White House...."
These are all smart people, so it boggles the mind to wonder how they can install a totalitarian regime without knowing the next two steps in the playbook.
Jefferson might have been called a totalitarian had the word existed when he signed the judiciary act of 1802, which removed judges added by federalists.
Well Jefferson certainly wasn't ever wrong about anything. He certainly wouldn't have held any beliefs contrary to 20th or 21st century values. /s
Obviously the dude had a lot of good ideas, but just grabbing anything he said and acting like it's gospel is flawed for dare I say a pretty glaring reason...
I'm not saying that Jefferson's words were elevated beyond his peers.
His flaws certainly belie such an assertion.
I'm saying that what Jefferson did was to remove problematic judges.
Congress had, has, and will have the power to reshape the federal judiciary as they choose. They can erase all courts below the supreme, and they can add or remove justices to the highest court as they choose (excepting present members, which are lifetime). Thus the saying "pack the court."
To challenge an executive that has friends in congress is a dangerous proposition for a federal judge.
> To challenge [the legality of an action by] an executive that has friends in congress is a dangerous proposition for a federal judge.
> It could end badly.
This implies that the courts cannot be an effective check and balance on the other branches. Aren't they meant to be?
It depends what you think is meant by the term "effective". Courts foremost serve a truth-finding function and buffer against arbitrary authority being applied to individual people.
It's always been controversial whether a court can disparage a law of broad application or impugn the president directly. The "effectiveness" of those functions was always a little speculative.
Lower courts typically deal with questions of fact and how they intersect with questions of law; higher courts (appeals courts and Supreme Court) typically deal with questions of law (ambiguity/interpretation) exclusively. Courts as an institution don't serve a "truth-finding function" so much as a "law-ambiguity removing function".
> disparage
> impugn
Everyone seems focused on whether a court has the right to, like, insult the president personally. But that's not really the important part of what they're doing. They _of course_ have the right to question whether the law allows what the president is doing -- and questioning this is not disparagement or impugning.
They are meant to be a check and balance on the legislative and executive branch, but those branches are also meant to be a check and balance against the judicial. It's not a one way street. This statement is not intended to address the root current event being discussed.
Yes, there is no difference beetween what republicans were doing back then and what democrats were wanting now /s
This is why bothsidism is ridiculous. Both sides are the same! Both are accusing the other one of something wrong! Oh, it does not matter than one is lying and other is saying the truth.
They are playing with semantics on minor technicalities that are irrelevant because federal code is expansive enough to make this breach a clear violation of the law on multiple counts. The Senators rightly grilled these incompetents on why couldn't they disclose the nature of the communications if they were unclassified and not sensitive.
The capable adults from the 45th administration are gone because they were too responsible. You can see what happens when you draw from a pool of nothing but drooling sub-80s.
> “1215et: F-18s LAUNCH (1st strike package),” Hegseth wrote in the chat. “1345: Trigger Based F-18 Strike Window Starts (Target Terrorist is @his Known Location so SHOULD BE ON TIME—also, Strike Drones Launch (MQ-9s).”
If I were a potential "target terrorist" and this chat had leaked before the strikes, I'd make damned sure I wasn't at my "known location" that day.
Traitors like her being in the highest offices of the land makes me sick. I will never forget images of her meeting Assad after that sob gazed children with chemical weapons, or her voting present to an impeachment. I wouldn't believe that traitor if she told me the Russians were at my doorstep. We have a circus filled with clowns unfortunately. The desk with Patel and her being interrogated is such a clown show.
She met a dictator (Assad) that used nerve-agents on children. She visited and stood with Russia after their invasion of Ukraine. Are you out of your mind? Keep watching Fox News. I always wondered who was uneducated enough to vote for her. Clearly didn't expect to find such people in this community.
Just to be clear: Putin and bio-"weapons" labs is different than Assad and sarin. I believe you are referring to the Russian spin that Ukraine was doing bioweapons research. (I also don't believe Tulsi espouses that slant, despite being initially concerned.)
> “Her response was, ‘How do you know it was Assad and Russia and not ISIS?’” Mustafa recalled of the exchange. “Ludicrous question: ISIS doesn’t have airplanes.” Henning, the spokeswoman for the Trump transition, denied the exchange occurred.
> Two years later, she echoed similar doubts about the Trump administration’s assessment that the Assad regime used sarin gas to attack civilians. A United Nations panel and numerous other foreign governments came to the same conclusion.
> “This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if Biden Admin/NATO had simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns,” she posted on Twitter at the start of Russia’s invasion in 2022.
> Gabbard’s remarks about Russia haven’t gone unnoticed in Moscow, where state-run media have praised her and even jokingly referred to her as a Russian agent. An article published Friday in RIA Novosti, a major Russian state-controlled news agency, called Gabbard “superwoman” and noted her past appearances on Russian TV, claiming that Ukrainian intelligence views her as “probably an agent of the Russian special services.”
It sure is. Weakness is reminiscent of those leaders that met Hitler believing one can reason with monsters. Your ignorance is clearly a bliss though. I am reminded of those Ukrainian leaders that believed meeting Putin would prevent an invasion. These are not reasonable men, but absolute monsters. Meeting them makes Tulsi complicit. Maybe my morals just make me ill-suited to meet murderers (in a non-official capacity nonetheless). Giving legitimacy to these people is ridiculous. Good thing she will never come close to the presidency. Despite her treasons and her ignorance, she is also highly unlikeable and has the charm of a sponge. Only men lacking any morals or any critical reasoning could be mesmerized by a clown like Tulsi
What? That's simply not true even by a long shot. In no way shape or form is she condoning anything by being willing to engage with someone non-violently.
Go read my other response. I've quoted Tulsi talking about her trip to Syria. She's trying to find a way to end suffering. I'm not sure you really understand how much damage our own government has done to people and how we appear to others. Gabbard has more courage than you'll ever know.
> Maybe my morals just make me ill-suited to meet murderers (in a non-official capacity nonetheless).
So you're a pacifist. War is war. I'm not defending Assad I'm reminding you that people and countries do horrible things in war on both sides. The US, the atomic bomb, missiles from the sky in the middle east, collateral damage, killing families of terrorists. I think you'd have a hard time if you tried to apply your moral framework to "the good guys".
Painful as it may be, there are valid moral frameworks where ending suffering may be more important, immediate, and urgent than refusing to acknowledge another state's leader because they're horrible.
Of course your point about diplomacy to end suffering works in some instances. However, that was not her call to make, and she was NOT in a capacity to do so, for she was not the elected president nor was she sent on behalf of an elected administration. She legitimized dictators. Putin had agreed to never invade Ukraine for instance, and look at where we are now. Additionally, I agree wars do happen. But we must agree that some crimes are so heinous (nukes, chemical weapons etc), as to make the perpetrator shunned from society. We do it in prisons for heinous crimes. However, it seems a former KGB agent is "entitled" to more dignity from Tulsi than the victims of the war.
> “I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there’s a chance it can help bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much suffering,” Gabbard said.
IDK... I don't have strong enough hatred in my soul to condemn someone for "meeting with a dictator" if they think there might be a path to end suffering. Honestly to me that sounds like someone with courage to do what's necessary to make a difference.
>
Gabbard said her trip included stops in Aleppo and Damascus, Syria’s capital. She also visited Beirut during the trip, which began in mid-January. Gabbard said she also met with refugees, Syrian opposition leaders, widows and family members of Syrians fighting alongside groups like al-Qaeda, and Syrians aligned with the Assad regime.
Gabbard said that the U.S. has “waged wars of regime change” in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Yet each has resulted “in unimaginable suffering, devastating loss of life, and the strengthening of groups like al-Qaeda” and the Islamic State group, she said.
“My visit to Syria has made it abundantly clear,” Gabbard said. “Our counterproductive regime change war does not serve America’s interest, and it certainly isn’t in the interest of the Syrian people.”
>
THIS IS LITERALLY WHAT THE LEFT HAS BEEN SAYING FOR DECADES. We need to get our hands our of other wars and stop causing suffering in peoples/cultures/nations we don't understand.
But oh no because she's willing to work with Trump and not against him she's a filthy fucking traitor. Your kind of rhetoric is what makes me sick.
I am not a leftist. I do not believe that constitutes a war. It is a dictator denying his people freedom and commiting heinous acts to hold onto power. A war implies an opposing army, not rebels. America's freedom was won by rebellion. Your argument is alien to the founding of this nation, and is almost treasonous. We clearly will not agree on this point. She is not reaching across the aisle. She's always been an infiltrator who loves attention more than morality. The guy backed by Iran and who has warplanes lost against people armed with leftover artillery. That is the power of the will of the people. The ending would have been way more poetic if justice was served in his country, instead of his cowardice flight to Russia. Though I bet Tulsi will follow suit after her next act of treason
Gogogo - very popular, and pretty extensive coverage [0]. The only problem is the scooters themselves are so quiet they sneak up behind you on the street.
Conversely, it's far better to have a slightly more verbose section of code that is immediately readable than a super slick one-liner that like two people can parse.
Maintainability is, in my opinion, just as important as other considerations when writing code. And often the more verbose approach is composed of simpler steps, meaning bugs can be easier to spot during code reviews
reply