goatlover

That's a failure of imagination on your part. I don't agree that governments should have this kind of information about us in order to cross borders.

But you do plan on continuing to work, not have the AI bootstrap itself into a machine god and do all possible work for humanity instead.

Define "everyone". Google has an AI result before the search results. People do use that. People also still use search results when they're dissatisfied with the AI answer.

Yes it's a useful tool. What does that have to do with the singularity, recursive ASI, fully automated economies or whatever is being hyped as the radical transformation of society?

Flash generated SVGs so it could be resized to any screen.

I believe those followed global extinction events thanks to large scale volcanic activity over long enough time frames to change the climate. Life did adapt, the life that survived. I'm not sure we want to run that experiment on human civilization.

How many die from cold in the summer?

It's a temperature range and percent likelihood. The warmer the planet, the greater the odds of experiencing these sorts of conditions.

How do the markets know it's intelligent allocation before RSI is actually a thing? What makes those companies immune to failure?

That would be a failure of imagination when it comes to everything secretaries actually do. Which is a problem with the idea that AI is coming for all our jobs anytime soon. It totally undersells everything humans do on the job.

Could have sworn it was trying to convince Iran to accept a peace plan after killing their former leaders who would have committed to one.

Should it be allowed to intentionally make addiction problems worse?

The Yale economist Pascual Restrepo, who is well regarded researcher in automation, doesn't think it will happen for most jobs.

https://fortune.com/2026/04/04/ai-jobs-future-not-important-...

The economics and politics remain the same. Do we want to allow massive wealth disparity and fascist policies to prevail, while social safety nets and civil rights are dismantled? Technology doesn't change that.

This is a narrative framing from the tech companies who started and continue the AI race. The current administration is following this framing because the tech billionaires helped them get elected, so they are getting their pay back. It's crony capitalism.

And it's not the only thing being prioritized over people and planet, although it's related to ongoing promotion of fossil fuels and wars, along with increased political propaganda.

Where's the threat that would necessitate a visit? It's not like he had a pizza delivered to the official's home.

If the pandemic had been deadlier and even more infectious like measles or smallpox were, would you still be against mandates? Surely there is a scenario like airborne Ebola or 28 days Later Rage virus that would justify mandates.

Science hasn't worked since 1986? HN has some of the wildest claims / exaggerations.

Climate change being man made is a scientific fact as in humans are driving the majority of warming since the industrial revolution by pumping increasing amounts of green house gases in the atmosphere. This warming is simple physics even if the effect on weather is complex. Venus is an example of run-way greenhouse warming.

A ten year old can debate what they want, opinions don't change scientific facts (burning fossil fuels puts greenhouse gases in the air which trap heat from the sun). Consensus meaning most most climatologists agree on what the data and models are telling them.

There are not two sides to the basic facts of the matter (complexities around which models are more accurate or what society should do is a separate matter).

Doesn't matter. His policies are to defund clean energy and promote continued fossil fuel use.

If it were about truth alone, the person who is right could be content with being right and not caring what others believe, just like they don’t care about 99.9999% of beliefs held by others either.

Disagree, if you care about truth, you're not going to just let people spread any opinion as if it were fact. It has societal consequences. That way lies the dark ages, witch hunts, wrong people getting into power. Of course one needs to be judicious in which battles to fight.

So it's only a fact if you can verify it, and not if the scientific community can? And you're consistent about this via all scientific findings you haven't verified like the balance in your bank account? You reject as fact any astronomical data or microscopic results you haven't seen with your own eyes? Or any satellite data you haven't analyzed yourself?

Do you doubt that greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere have gone up since humans started burning fossil fuels, and do you doubt the physics of how they trap solar radiation? Do you doubt that climate scientists know how to put sensors in the oceans, in rural areas and released in weather balloons along with satellites to measure temperatures across the planet year by year? Or that they can extract ice cores to measure trapped atmospheric gas from thousands of years ago? That sort of thing.

Yes it's a scientific fact humans have been causing the current warming by burning fossil fuels since the industrial revoluton.

You can make skeptical arguments against this is you're willing to dismiss empirical data and methodology behind scientific facts. The people who do this aren't consistent and cherry pick which empirical data, models and methodologies to dismiss. It tends to align with some belief challenged by the science. Or their financial interests.

It's much harder to be a consistent skeptic, since empirical data is verifiable, and the scientific method works for all sorts of fields and technologies. But it could all be dream of a mental patient in a simulation god programmed while making a bet with the devil.

Those rights came to exist in the west in response to kings and tyrants doing whatever they wanted at the expense of their subjects. Also because communities sometimes do bad things to people not able to simply drive away. Pretty sure Asia has had it's share of human rights abuses.

Why is it a problem to have US citizens being raised elsewhere? What bad thing is being caused by this?

And if they do enough of that, the other two branches might eventually be motivated to take action to counter it, like packing the courts or impeachments. Or telling SCOTUS to enforce it, as one president did.

Why do you think it's not a good idea?

Trump's approval rating is in the 30s and has been for a while. He won a plurality not a majority of the votes in 2024. An even larger number of eligible voters didn't vote.

Also Congress was meant to be the democratic representation of the people. Technically, the president is elected by the states.