The Court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the Nation’s history: Whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution. The majority thinks he should, and so it invents an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law.

The majority makes three moves that, in effect, completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability. First, the majority creates absolute immunity for the President’s exercise of “core constitutional powers.” Ante, at 6. This holding is unnecessary on the facts of the indictment, and the majority’s attempt to apply it to the facts expands the concept of core powers beyond any recognizable bounds. In any event, it is quickly eclipsed by the second move, which is to create expansive immunity for all “official act[s].” Ante, at 14. Whether described as presumptive or absolute, under the majority’s rule, a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution. That is just as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless. Finally, the majority declares that evidence concerning acts for which the President is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him. See ante, at 30–32. That holding, which will prevent the Government from using a President’s official acts to prove knowledge or intent in prosecuting private offenses, is nonsensical.

Sotomayor dissenting opinion

Notice how nobody admits that Smiths decision to ask the supreme court to expedite review in the first place backfired...

No its just a prospective mountain of evidence that may or may not exist might sway the public against him 12 to 24 months from now in a 5d legal chess manuever give me a fucking break. This is just pure cope. Direct action is the only answer and everybody who tries it in earnest is just gonna get assassinated.

Colbie callait is somewhere feeling far less bubbly all the sudden

Love wildermyth

+1

Dont worry the DNC will find a way to blame Bernie for it

Nothing says "definitely not a genocide" like declaring a refugee aid organization terrorists for providing aid to the residential neighborhoods you're bombing.

Kinds wish they moved panel 1 to 4 for the reveal

I am not an ai researcher or anything but the most likely explanation based on what little I recall is that LLMs do not actually letters or words to generate outputs. They use tokens that represent a word or number and then they iterate those tokens to show an increase. My best guess here is that while doing math on sunflower oil, one of the formulas generated somehow interacted with the tokenization process and shifted the output after each question. Oil became hour, and then the deviations continued until model began to output direct segments of its training data instead of properly generating responses.

Again this is absolutely speculation on my part. I don't have much of a direct understanding of the tech involved

Go to the Wikipedia, click on Reception, load the archived sources 40 thru 45 and then ask yourself how credible MEMRI is.

How Memri translates is here in the debate on source 45:

In your Special Dispatch 151, for instance, you translated an interview given by the mufti of Jerusalem to al-Ahram al-Arabi, shortly after the start of the Palestinian uprising.

One question the interviewer asked was: "How do you deal with the Jews who are besieging al-Aqsa and are scattered around it?" Memri translated this as: "How do you feel about the Jews?" - which is a different question. That left you with a reply in Arabic which didn't fit your newly-concocted question. So you cut out the first part of the mufti's reply and combined what was left with part of his answer to another question.

Nice no more police funding

Nothing says Liberty like banning books!