Mnemnosyne

Of course that's what you see - those ideas have been planted. That's exactly what they want, they want regulations to prevent just anyone from getting into it and making use of the technology.

OpenAI whining about not being able to make money if they can't use the training data? That's Brer ~~Fox~~ Rabbit crying "please don't throw me into the briar patch, anything but that!" because if such regulations happen they'll pay a fine or something and then...nobody new can compete with the established parties. They absolutely love to use regulations to pull the ladder up behind themselves so they can't be competed with.

If anything I wonder if all the weird shit they're pushing is just to stoke anti AI sentiment so they can get these regulations passed.

It's deeper than that. It's about defense of the Status Quo. No superhero looks around at the parts of society that we just accept without thinking about and says this needs to change.

Well first, spend a long time practicing tiny handwriting. Like, let's make the absolute most use out of this sheet as possible; it's possible to get the size of handwritten characters down to about 3mm, but let's say 4 with the assumption that I can't get it down that low. That means I have about 74 lines vertically to write in, each line able to accommodate somewhere between 70 and 52 characters, depending on the width. Let's average it to 60 characters per line, so 74x60 = 4,440 characters, times two for two sides of the page. Average number of characters per name is 7, so 14, plus two for spaces, and let's add another two for a middle initial and another space. That's 18 characters per name. This means I should be able to fit just under 500 names on the page if I use both sides as efficiently as possible.

I'll get the list of the 500 richest people in the world, and start going down it from richest on down. But not all at once. First the top name. One week later, the next name. One week after that, the next name down, and so on. After a few weeks the pattern would become obvious and we see what happens. Sadly I have no magical knowledge of who is the richest person at any given moment, so I have to just go off the list I already possess (or any new information I decide to be sufficiently trustworthy). One every week for five hundred names is 3,500 days, or 9.5 years. That is long enough to make it quite apparent this is inevitable and make it seem like it's going to continue forever, and it's long enough for legislation and other things to be done in response. Let's see how they freak out and what they try to do in response.

Yeah, and we still haven't learned the lesson. We have people today attacking AI technology rather than the way it's being used to funnel wealth inequitably.

It actually helps the wealthy capitalists, because they can use that sentiment to promote regulations that will entrench their positions.

One timeline, actions can have an effect. But once you time travel you unmoor yourself from normal causality, so you could do things that should negate your existence and nothing will happen to you.

Indeed, if you time travel again you can't affect your own actions anymore. Like, you travel back 20 minutes, do things for an hour, then jump back 5 minutes, when you go back the second time you can't alter yourself. You could go later the you from before you ever time traveled though.

This is also why I can't respond 'good' to how I am. If I am 'good' then it means I'm better than average or median. But if I say I am good too often, it becomes the average.

If you post a link to an article, you are endorsing that article as something worth reading. You are stating that you believe this is worth people's time and attention.

If someone disagrees with that, it is reasonable to tell you that in fact they do not believe it to be worth people's time and attention and they do not think you should be endorsing it as if it were.

So you know, maybe it's not just the article that someone is taking issue with, but the person spreading it and encouraging people to read it.

There is no guarantee that they will get paid. For that to happen, congress will have to pass a spending bill that not only authorized future spending but also explicitly gives back pay for the time they were working without paying after the shutdown.

So far this has always happened, but I do remember some noises about not doing it around the last shutdown.

So especially after those comments last time, there is no certainty that if you come in to work for the government during a shutdown you will be paid.

There's a reason the country lost credit rating, and it's because people are slightly less confident that it will actually pay its debts, including simple payroll.

For me, given my age and all...five million.

Which kind of rich do you mean? The 'this person is truly wealthy but it's not unreasonable' or 'this person is unacceptably rich and should have their money taken away if not worse'?

The former can be somewhere around....$10,000,000 or so. Lower the older the person is really (cause I consider rich versus remaining expected lifespan), so maybe even as low as $6,000,000 for someone who's currently 40.

The latter where it's simply unacceptable for people to have that much I'd start the cutoff around $400,000,000 or so.

And slight sidenote on the unacceptable levels: Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos both are so unacceptably wealthy that they could make one person a day wealthy by my $10,000,000 standard...every day...for 100 years...before running out (and that's assuming they stopped accruing money at the beginning of this)...and still be unacceptably wealthy to a crazy degree.

Oh and all my numbers are assuming no additional income and definitely no interest or investment (but also assuming the money remains the same value it has today).

I can't imagine coming in to work if I'm not being paid on time. Indeed, if there's even a whiff of maybe I won't get paid, I'm not coming in unless I'm paid in advance.

Every government worker that is told they're not getting paid should do that. Money in my account now, before I come in to work.

Primaries are only rigged in that yes, the rules and the entire framework is built to benefit those currently in power, but that is less rigged than the general is against a third party, which is to say, totally, absolutely, and unassailably rigged. Proclaiming it impossible because it's rigged is silly when you're advocating for instead competing in one that is far, far more rigged and has far more structure to prevent any upsets.

We have never actually won a primary and had them ignore it. They use their structural advantages as much as they can, but if we push hard enough to overcome those advantages, they don't just nullify the election and go with their candidate. We do get people like Ocasio-Cortez in there from time to time, when people actually show up to the primaries enough to flip it to the more progressive candidate. If we got enough candidates like her in, not just in congress but state houses and such too, we'd actually start getting places.

Now the bribes and money on the corporate side, nothing we can do about that - we have to overcome it so that we can get officials in place that will do something about it.

Now lemme put it this way. I live in bumfuck Ohio where there's no chance of a progressive candidate being elected. But I still vote in every primary. People who live in places where there is more of a chance of doing something need to be as diligent as I am, if not more, damnit.