Manuel_D

But crucially:

However, the court did not reverse its holding in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition as to virtual child pornography which is not obscene under the Miller standard

Not quite. There can be more restrictions on the distribution or promotion of obscene material, but mere possession of obscene material is protected by the first Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_v._Georgia

The reason why the Supreme Court upheld bans on possessing CSAM is not because it's obscene, but because it incentivizes abuse of children to produce it.

At least in the US, fictional content is legal even if it depicts minors sexually: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit...

There have been a handful of convictions based on fictional content, but usually the defendants also possessed real CSAM so there wasn't much point in contesting the charges over fictional images.

But delaying the opening probably means that the decommissioning date is also pushed back. The total life span is probably unchanged.

I mostly see commenters quipping about how this will just mean the concert will have to be re poured, resulting in yet more emissions. The bulk of the comments are about the protestors, not the environmental impact of this data center.

Are we talking about the environmental impact? Or are we talking about the vandalism perpetrated by activists? Attention on the protestors is not necessarily attention on the protestors' cause.

True, but if each run of CI takes 6 weeks then you're going to vastly hamper development.

I'm no mechanical engineer, but can't any motor be run with greater power if the fuel mixture settings are remapped? Is it possible to design a motor that runs at 25 horsepower at leaner emissions-compliant settings, but can't run at higher power if a user changes the fueling settings to a richer mixture? I'm skeptical if it's even possible to design an engine that runs at 25 horsepower when complying with emissions requirements, but can't be tuned to run at higher power if users have the ability to change fuel settings.

They were purposefully avoiding the regulation by telling farmers, "do not loosen that screw, or you'll break the law, wink-wink!"

They were? The whole point of John Deere locking down the firmware was to prevent this metaphorical loosening of the screw. It looks more like John Deere invested heavily in preventing modification of its hardware, much to the chagrin of farmers who wanted to cheat emissions.

It's more like: every engine has a metaphorical screw that can change the fuel mixture - this is inherent to combustion engines. John Deere made it really difficult or impossible to change that screw. Now farmers regained the ability to change that screw under the guise of repair.

The point is that when the firmware was locked down, it was vastly more difficult to bypass emissions restrictions. I'm not sure what you mean when you say John Deere was cheating the system. Arguably they were taking compliance more strictly before this ruling.

Ah sorry, I meant to write "calls for". To be more specific:

he hilariously tries to convince people that the best way to have democracy is to not have it at all. a kind of “to protect your freedom, we’ll take away your freedom” idea that only a certain kind of person falls for.

Where does he say anything like this? You made some specific allegations about what he said in his manifesto. Can you point to the passage that you're referring to when you make the above point about not having a democracy?

Is making the government's job hard a good thing? If medicare delivers care half as good as it could have been, that's a good thing? If fraudsters go unchecked because the FBI is stymied, is the country better off?

Facebook was created more than a decade earlier than your link. Of course if the government starts to threaten to regulate social media, Meta will want to influence the decision to benefit them. But Facebook changed the world well before the regulation push, and I'm pretty certain Facebook would have preferred that the government continued to remain uninvolved.

How would you interpret Thiel's “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible"?

The point is that democracies tend to want to erode liberties. Take the age gating bills floating around as an example.

The solution Thiel proposes is not eliminating democracy. It's building technology that governments cannot easily control. Cryptocurrency is one good example of this.

This is a company where 88% of employe political contributions went to Democrats. Even if many employees are apolitical, the allegations of fascism are absurd.

So your answer is yes? The companies like GM, Cadillac, etc. they were buildings tanks to defeat the Nazis were themselves fascists, because producing armarments is an inherently fascist endeavor? Even if the military they're equipping is actively fighting against real fascists?

Palantir builds analytics, tools to better use and interpret the data that the government already has. The data collection, the actual surveillance, is done by the government.

Palantir started with analytics because the founders believed the US was making poor use of data, and needed better tools.

Yes, the objections to Palantir are mostly just partisan politics. Efforts to portray Karp or Thiel as especially dangerous usually involves some taking some quote and applying a massive leap in logic.

Like, Thiel says that it's easier to change the world by inventing new technology than through democracy. And people turn around and try quote this to prop up the claim that he wants to abolish democracy.

I'd say they changed the world first and foremost through technology. Their lobbying effort is mostly focused on keeping the government from interfering with their technology efforts.

But back to the main point, quoting someone saying you can change the world though technology instead of democracy and trying to use such a statement as evidence that they want to abolish democracy is nonsense.

Again, where does Karp or Thiel say they want to get rid of democracy? They've said that government is bad at solving a lot of problems, sure. But that's a far, far cry from calling for the abolition of democracy.

You realize that lobbying is working within the framework of an electoral democracy? When environmentalists lobby for more stringent emissions rules, they're not overthrowing democracy they're participating in it.

So the answer your question: Meta spends millions on lobbying to influence elected officials, because it knows has to work within the democratic system.

Can you point to where Karp falls for abolishing democracy? I can't seem to find that part.

You realize that "changing the world without politics" doesn't mean overthrow of democracy. It means founding businesses to produce goods and services that change the world. Google and Facebook absolutely changed the world, not through politics, but by creating technology.

And Boeing? And General Motors? And the hundreds of other companies that produced armarments?

Microsoft, a company mostly centered in the Pacific Northwest, is not exactly full of right wingers: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/microsoft-corp/summary?id=d...

By this logic, Ford and Boeing were contributing to technofascism when they were building tanks and planes for the Allies in WWII.

I don't think that most would agree with your understanding of technofascism.

What is this in reference to? Karp has said that US tech companies should be more willing to work with military and intelligence agencies. By that standard, though, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Booz Allen Hamilton, heck even Microsoft are all supporters of "technofascism".

The question isn't whether there exists some other scenario would justify violently resisting law enforcement. Sure, the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was justified even if the Nazi occupiers were acting within the bounds of German laws at the time. But that's irrelevant. The question is whether this scenario warrants it.

And like it or not, countries have the freedom to define their own immigration policy. If I overstay my tourist visa in Canada I'll get deported. This isn't some grave violation of human rights.

If someone decided to open fire on Canadian immigration enforcement officers to try and block my deportation, they should get prosecuted and imprisoned.

Your persistence in trying to justify shooting law enforcement is disturbing. It mirrors the thinking that motivated January 6th rioters beating up the police. Like you, they believed their mission was righteous and justified violence against law enforcement.

What are you astonished by? Do you think lethal force in self defense against law enforcement is justified, even when the police are conducting a lawful arrest?

Let's say someone robs a liquor store at gunpoint. The police chase him down, with their guns drawn - which is totally reasonable given that they're trying to arrest a criminal who is armed with a gun. The robber turns and sees a pair of police officers with their guns trained on him. The robber shots the two cops dead.

Is this a justified shooting? By your logic, yes it is. The robber saw two police officers with their guns drawn, that meets your criteria for the law enforcement officers presenting a deadly threat.

On my end, I absolutely am astonished by your attempts to justify shooting law enforcement officers.

The most convincing argument I could make is that the government could step in and keep the insurance agencies solvent. Sort of a too-big-to-fail situation.

This group showed up at the ICE facility with a dozen sets of body armor, multiple firearms, and radios. They shot fireworks at the facility, and when the law enforcement officers went to go arrest them a member of the group shot the officer. Those facts are not disputed.

Using deadly force in self defense against law enforcement officer is only justified when that law enforcement officer is acting outside the bounds of the law. The fact that said law enforcement officer had a drawn firearm does not make it legal to shoot that officer. The officers having their firearms drawn was also reasonable given that the rioters were armed with guns. These officers were making a legal arrest, and thus any claim of self defense by the rioters is moot.

Like it or not, ICE is still law enforcement. You don't get to just say "I don't like this agency, so I am justified in gunning down any member of that agency that tries to arrest me."