Maybe the real humanitarian failure is that the US didn't nuke everybody and start over from the stone age. Can't any societal problems if no societies exist, right?
Does any serious historian believe that fully defeating the Soviet Union after WWII would have been possible? Even with the advantage of nuclear weapons, I doubt the US would have made it very far.
At least NK's human rights abuses are contained within their borders. I hope future generations will look back on the many US invasions of foreign countries over the years and all the war crimes that took place during those invasions with the scrutiny they deserve.
While I agree with you, I find it hard to argue against the view that politicians are elected for the views they held during their campaign. They may change their mind after being elected, but their constituents that voted for them will not all change their mind simultaneously. To the ones that don't change their mind, it does appear to be a betrayal of their principles. A rational politician would not want to gain that kind of reputation out of pure self-interest.
I would be much more inclined to continue voting for a politician who could explain their policy position as it changes in an open and sensible way. Politicians putting on a speech that sounds truthful and honest and like a discussion is happening between adults is so rare - it seems that very few people want that. I do though.
No. But which nation claims to be all about freedom, and which is known for restricting individual liberties for (whatever the people in charge consider to be) the greater good?
> I'd agree but we're beyond hopelessly idealistic. That sort of approach only helps your competition who will use it to build a closed product
That same argument can be applied to open-source (non-model) software, and is about as true there. It comes down to the business model. If anything, crating a closed-sourced copy of a piece of FOSS software is easier than an AI model since running a compiler doesn't cost millions of dollars.
And in France specifically, the first case you open is guaranteed to not be a good item. So it's essentially the same system but with an additional $2,50 entry fee
I propose any company that flagrantly violates the intent of a ruling like that is sent to a special judge who operates in the same manner - bring forth a penalty while explicitly looking for every violation and arcane loophole to punish the company with.
To save people opening the link...in France it would be a judge not a prosecutor. France has an Inquisitorial rather than the Adversarial legal system the UK and US have. Put simply, a judge doesn't merely decide between the two cases presented to them, they try and establish the facts
Edit: I said 'UK' where I should have said 'England and Wales'. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own legal systems, although I believe both have Adversarial systems they are different in some ways. The US system could, however, be seen as a continuation of the English system.
I'll bet apple fan boys will agree to this statement for Valve or any other company, but when it comes to apple having to open up their walled garden in EU and then using every dirty trick in the book to make it impossible, oh boy...
It's a shame how many platforms are moving away from transparent moderation. I get that there are strong incentives to do so - a user that knows they're banned will immediately try to find a way to circumvent the ban. Shadowbanning delays that reaction if not stopping it outright. But damn does the concept feel dystopian. Like you're being ignored through seemingly no fault of your own. Surely that can't be healthy. And yet the platform is better off because the person isn't trying to circumvent the ban. And don't even get me started on replacing human interaction with AI for shadowbanned users.
reply