He was actually a founder of spaceX, it was Tesla where he essentially bought the company and had to win a lawsuit to get people to call him "founder".

I don't see how using terms correctly is doing "the devils work" if anything its a useful corrective to "chat bots do all the things" to explain to people that AI is an umbrella term that includes many things.

Problem is the explosives are cheap, a decoy that can get to Moscow will cost like 90% as much as an actual drone, so might as well launch a real one at a target.

That is exactly what happens, each potential provider says "I will sell you Y amount of power for at least X price" the grid tots up the offers going from cheapest up until they have enough generating capacity and then pay all the providers the highest price they needed to get to. This is all public so they cant pay the cheap provider less than the expensive one, because they can just turn round and raise their price to that same highest price, knowing that the provider wold lose more money to go to everyone else.

(They actually do it the other way round, start at the highest price and keep lowering it and having providers drop out, until too many drop out and then the previous price is set for everyone that's still in. But it has the same end result, everyone gets paid the lowest price that enough people are willing to sell at in order to cover demand.)

For a little context, saying our sun is seconds from dying is about as accurate as saying the universe will undergo heat death in billions of years (taking heat death to be no more active stars left in the universe).

Why would that trigger a sell off? It was an official US government stamp of approval that "These things are so dangerous and powerful we have to treat them as weapons." It was bullshit but it played straight into Anthropic's story.

Huh, yeah you're right. I could have sworn it was functional when I looked at it before...

There's this which seems like an implementation of what you want with other features included (like web search and calculator tools as well as persistent memory). I've been meaning to check it out for a while but haven't got round to it.

Ok if you're not going to address my points and instead just parrot the text of a motion (which says "proposals to abolish or severely restrict the right to trial by jury in England and Wales by limiting jury trials to cases attracting sentences of less than three years") which clearly states it is only talking about a subset then I'm done here.

Gold had been underperforming for decades before Brown sold it off though, you cant really fault him for not predicting the future.

yOU Are mAkING iT SOUNd LiKe the MAJOriTY of cRime IS DeaLT wiTH by anYBodY WheN it veRy mUCh ISn’T.

Very mature argument. I never said anything of the sort, and if anything the bulk of crimes that dont get prosecuted are likely to be summary only anyway (shoplifting and the like).

And you seem to be mistaken on that the only way to be sentenced by a magistrate is if you plead guilty. It isn't, trials can also go before a magistrate to determine guilt is the offence isnt indictable only (and the magistrate doesnt think it is too complex and needs to be sent to crown court). The defendant may then then request for it to go to crown court instead, which comes with larger sentences possible (magistrates cannot issue terms of more than 12 months), longer time until trial, and a full jury.

What is being proposed is that right to request crown court is being removed for some either way cases. Whether its a good thing or not I dont have the expertise to say, I dont like the erosion of jury trials, but I also dont like that people can have their lives ruined by being stuck in limbo for 5 years waiting for a case to prove their innocence either.

Fundamentally, the point is that there is already a class of crimes which do not get a jury trial, a class which can get a jury trial and a class which must get a jury trial. The proposed changes would move some offences from the second category into the first. I dont see how calling that "the abolishment of jury trials" is an accurate representation.

The majority of crimes are already summary only, that's just the consequence of there being a lot more petty thefts and speeding than murders.

I'm not a fan of the impression that moving more cases from either way to summary only is being done for reasons of costs, but you are making it sound like this is trial by jury going away for everything when it very much isn't.

Gaza is an on going Genocide, Northern Ireland was the source of state repression and terrorism which has since come to a political settlement agreed by the governments on both sides.

Pretending the two are equivalent is ridiculous.

Very much so, but at the same time they have to not let themselves be absorbed and neutralised by the corporate dems. It is a difficult road to walk, but its the only realistic way of pushing left wing policy in the US right now.

Take your pick of European country and look into social housing. Yes its not as widespread as it could be and has faults, but it is a system of providing housing to people outside the market/capitalist system.

Insisting on "free" as the marker of being outside a market system is illiterate, resources have to be expended to create things and their has to be accounting for this somehow. Even things that are are free at the point of use (oh look like the UK's NHS, another example of a left wing policy in existence) have to manage their resources and ensure that they are distributed correctly.

Its not perfect therefore its not leftwing, gosh who could have predicted that.

A gift economy being a (unproven in an industrialised context) way of running an economy other than a market system does not mean it is the only way of being outside a market system. A is not B does not imply that C is B.

And you still need to account for resources, just handwaving gift economy does not relieve that pressure, you need a system for how much gets put into healthcare as opposed to education as opposed to transport as opposed to research. That means tracking resources numerically and that means something along the lines of money.

The title kinda buries the lede there. I thought it was ridiculous to fine a platform just because a streamer happened to die on camera, but no, they were streaming months long abuse and torture of this guy at the hands of his co-streamers.

You cant just "fund a startup trying to make ram". Chip fabrication is probably the most difficult and capital intensive production process there is. What manufacturing more ram looks like is investing tens of billions of real money (not the you give us stock we let you use our GPU deals the AI companies have been doing) and then waiting 5-10 years before the fab you funded starts to make chips, and hope prices are still high by then.

That's why the existing manufactures are slow to scale up, they arent sure that the current spike in demand will still be there by the time their scaling up increases production.

So calling someone disagreeable a dick, or a bellend, or a prick, or a tosser, or a knobhead, or a wanker, is fine. But calling them a cunt is beyond the pale?

Well no they weren't, they were "caught" flying a plane over Gaza. Going from that to "directly participating in the operations" is a conclusion you are drawing which seems plausible, even likely, but is not directly supported by a British plane doing loops over Gaza.