> A universal health care mandate were both radical and divisive
It seems quite ironic, given the frequent complaints about the inability of Congress to either govern effectively or fix health insurance (for many and various definitions of "fix"), that the ACA was so divisive. At least it got passed! Yet given the opportunity twice (2017-2019, 2025-2027), a politically viable alternative hasn't been offered up by opponents of the ACA, let alone being able to fully repeal it.
I don't think it has to be about ethics at all. People might just be turned off by digital illustrations of food that could pass as creatures from a Ridley Scott film. I'm also a little surprised that this remains the aesthetic that AI continues to go with. With the top end being AI actresses giving major news outlet interviews, have basic free tier models not advanced beyond cosmic horror food?
What theft? Modern humans learned from the works of past humans, LLMs learned from the works of modern humans, other LLMs learned from those LLMs. Given that the methods by which Anthropic and OpenAI obtained training data remains a legal gray area, it's not so cut and dry to me that distillation is stealing. It's just a continuation of the long tradition of building knowledge on the knowledge of others.
I take it you didn't read AI 2027; it doesn't philosophize about cultural property - it simply narrates that a turning point is China acquiring the Agent's weights through hacking. "Stealing" in this context is simply the strictly legal term.
It's a shame there isn't the kind of competition in the US when it comes to mobile phones as there is in China. Many HN users would likely never buy a Chinese OEM device, but if you look at the variety of devices offered by Chinese brands, they're trying all sorts of approaches. Kind of like their EV market. Meanwhile, your choices in the US are Apple, Samsung, Motorola, Google, and that's pretty much it. I wouldn't say there's a ton of innovation between them...kind of like the large US automakers.
> Cameras have exonerated them from frivolous accusations many times and conversely have outed bad police who go on power trips -both good qualities.
Interesting. By the same logic, shouldn't LEOs feel discouraged to wear balaclavas and other types of masks? For example, DHS officers in the US have been wearing masks with the excuse that it protects them from doxxing but if they're operating within the law, what do they have to fear? Transparency serves everyone.
People have put out apps to track them in order to doxx, hound and intimidate them. People organize neighborhood vigilantes to look out for ICE. Communities have chosen to not turn over violent offenders who are in the country illegally over to ICE. You have people pelting them with bricks and other objects. You also have the Dems in Calif saying that merely working for ICE should disqualify them from state jobs. And that's for a job that enforces US immigration law. The same law Obama used to deport more than Trump has. The same laws that have been in effect for many decades. If I were one of them, I probably would want protection from vigilantes too. What other countries do you have where immigration enforcement officers get hounded not so much by the illegal immigrants but with their sympathizers? You don't see that in China, you don't see that in Japan, you don't see that in Mexico, you don't see that in Sweden, you don't see that in India, or Turkey. And, yes, all those countries deport illegal immigrants.
Imagine if you had police officers accosted when they try to make an arrest, or get interference, or get their cars rammed at by bystanders. If all communities cooperated with ICE in carrying out lawful removals and there were no sanctuaries, rhetoric, etc., then yeah, likely it would be good for them to have cameras.
> political promises and proposed solutions don’t work anyways
This is very effective for populist parties because in a way it keeps them from being held accountable by their own voters. When I hear interviews with Trump voters being faced with evidence of how Trump hasn't kept one campaign promise or another, it's exactly the sentiment above: politicians never keep their promises anyways and Trump is no different but we like him so we'll stick with him.
> This is more about holding government officials individually accountable.
The state can also file criminal charges against the officials, although given that the Flint water crisis didn't result in any criminal convictions despite the evidence, I'm not holding my breath. Not to mention that the state could choose _not_ to file charges. In which case, what avenue for justice is left? Financial compensation is only part of it.
Which is a little ironic given one of their arguments against DEI policies is that it chooses less qualified people in the name of diversity. If this administration isn't nominating on the basis of merit, what standing do they have to target law firms with DEI policies? [1]
reply