The old fashion way. Inherit it. Our the really really old fashion way. Fraud.

For the most part, the owner class does have a job. They have to buy and sell the things they own. They have to maintain relationships so they can get a better deal. And they gave to use thier influence to increase the value of what they own. It’s all fake work of course. It doesn’t increase the productive output overall. But it is a job. And pretty much full time at that.

The real answer is to be the kid of one of these people. Then you can make your money the old fashion way, inherit it.

One would think. But if you read the article, these amendments have a history of being “interpreted” away. New laws were passed to shore them up. But the new laws are being “interpreted” away again.

The gov owns a piece of intel now. If that isn’t enough, consider that they now have a competitive advantage in that government agencies are less likely to go after them for abusing customer trust and such. Intel will need to exploit that to get ahead. Also, there is constant talk of breaking up the company into parts and such. Not much stability there.

For AI, the largest computing expense is usually training. Individual uses are much smaller. And a model that has a narrow scope like flying can have even less demand. Also, they already have autonomous drones. They don’t even need AI. The AI part would probably be like target selection or strategy. And of course, since when did governments care about oversight in a warzone.

Well, maybe not useful to you. But to hackers, which at the government level are military, it can be very useful. They can use AI to exploit a publically disclosed exploit faster than people can patch thier systems. That can give one country access to the sensitive data of a different government. And of course, hacking utilities and infrastructure can give one country a lot of power over another. Why do you think a Russia is working to enable itself to isolate it’s internet from the rest of the world. Can’t hack what you can’t connect to. And of course, it doesn’t even have to matter if it is useful, as long as the governments of the world think they can’t let other governments get ahead of them.

I don’t see it as exponential. Plenty of up front costs that have a decent appreciation period. I think they can prop it up for 10 to 20 years though. And there is always the chance of some breakthrough to either extend that or pay it off. I expect more of the former though.

The same thing as everything else… money. If the gov dumps money into the bubble it won’t pop. I mean it’s not sustainable, but it can work for a pretty long time.

I wouldn’t go intel. That place is a shitshow. Also, I am not so sure the AI bubble will burst. World governments see it as sn arms race. So they will keep that industry propped up.

They all do bad things. Trump is just making them look good in comparison

I’ll even sign an executive order for it.

I didn’t ignore it. It specifically means states can’t make laws that go against the treaties. That is all. It does not mean they are laws like any other law. Congress passes laws to say things are bad. Not everything that is technically a law is the same as something that a person can be put on trial for. But speaking of things being ignored. You ignored that congress has refused to approve any of the updates to the geneva convention. So you would have to check if the things that were done are even in the part they ratified. Even if they are, by not ratifying the updates, they have made clear they no longer support it. So again, it is highly questionable as to if the things they did ratify can be considered laws like normal bills that are drafted and passed by congress.

That part of the constitution only says that federal overrules state. Meaning states can’t make laws that disagree with federal laws or treaties. By your interpretation, states would be responsible for enforcing federal laws, which is clearly not the case. This is a well established interpretation of this part of the constitution and is taught in most high schools.

Yes, I think it should happen. But I have no idea how to make it work at a large scale. And I don’t think economist know enough to accurately say what will or won’t work.

Would be federal charges… so he can’t. But he should announce he is doing it anyway like trump does for people and state laws

I get that you don’t understand subtle differences. Ratifyng a treaty is not the same as passing a law. In your head it is, but in a lawyers head it most certainly is not. They will argue about what legal precedence applies and what doesn’t based on the origin of the “law”.

The manual of course is an interpretation by the administration. Not a judge. So the judge can feel free to completely ignore any and all of it. They could litterally write that by thier interpretation, they don’t believe we need follow the geneva convention. Nothing stops them. So no, saying someone went against the manual doesn’t mean they broke the Geneva convention.

Last, the international laws are not only the geneva convention. There were several updates. The US did not ratify ANY of the updates. So no, the geneva convention rules are not all law in the US.

You are way off in your understanding of these things and are confidently wrong on a lot of them.

The encryption is meaningless unless someone physically take the drive. The os has the key, and M$ owns the OS. So it can read that data anytime it wants. So can anything running on the machine generally. It’s mostly theater.

But yes, my point was that people don’t want to because it is too much work. It needs to be easier.

Such hearings are just a dog and pony show. Both sides get some sound bites for thier base, and nothing changes. Oh, and that is intentional.

All said and done… people should have personally controlled access to their data. For physical things, some people have safes, others use safety deposit boxes at banks. But we don’t have a digital equivalent. And the problem is that the complexity is too high for a lot of people. So something like this would be good for some people, it still won’t get the majority. What we need is the digital equivalent of a fiduciary. Someone who is legally bound to look out for a person’s digital interests. That would allow people to trust such a person to vet simpler wrappers around set ups like this, or anything.

Yes, but… what makes 18 a magic number. Brain development doesn’t finish until a person’s 20’s. Feels like there should be more categories. Prepubescent, during puberty, post puberty, full adult. This would clearly fall in the post puberty range. In that range, some consideration should be made for the extra impulsivness and bad decision making. But showing a history, kinda dulls that defense. I think straight up jail is probably only retribution serving in the case of non adults. But confinement with a heavy dose of rehabilitation seems reasonable. Until rehabilitated, he should not be free to reoffend. The public should be protected. And probation only until 19 is absurd. Should be more like 25, when brain development most likely is done, and he can be assessed for the likelyhood to reoffend. The point of the system should be to protect the public and rehabilitate the offender so that the public no longer needs protection from them. The current sentence doesn’t do either. The “aggressive” schedule of therapy just means it happens over a short period of time. Very few things work better that way. Therapy certainly isn’t one of them.