Some of that money is these companies trying to find a use for this technology, because their investors don't want them to miss the AI train. Not sure what proportion is seeing any returns right now.
If the product were to disappear tomorrow, I doubt the real economy would notice the loss of 0.05% in productivity.
The National Institutes of Health, which historically has funded the research behind almost every drug on the market, this month announced that it would shift money that had been spent studying mRNA vaccines to pay for a $500 million grant to study a universal vaccine using traditional, non-mRNA technology. Jay Bhattacharya, a leading critic of the Covid response and the new director of the N.I.H., called it a “paradigm shift.”
> Some of the recent Michael Bay movies are so aggressive when it comes to cuts
An excellent episode of Every Frame A Painting is "Michael Bay --- What is Bayhem?" It explains in detail in what way those particular movies are poorly made.
I wouldn’t say they are all poorly made, but they became poorly made as they became more Bayhem. Like how Tim Burton leaned too far into his style (and his love of Depp in everything) and lost the balance. The Rock, The Island, Bad Boys, and Armageddon are very fun, exciting, and visually interesting movies. Then he leaned into Bayhem and now his movies are barely comprehensible.
> RT & the BBC are both state backed media organisations. It is quite difficult to come up with a reason for those except propaganda.
False equivalence.
By your logic, any government support automatically makes an outlet propaganda. So, NPR and PBS would also be propaganda, since they get a small grant.
RT and other Russian-sponsored outlets, in case you didn't know, try to both push the state narrative, and push conflicting conspiracy theories in different markets to convince people that there is no objective truth.
Like, for example, claiming that reliable Western news sources are government propaganda...
No, pjc50 is right. Republican politicians are scared of their leader because their primary elections are completely at his mercy. The reason for Congress's dysfunction today is 100% a partisan issue. No need to blame "elite power centers".
Eh, there's something in "complicity has been between the economic, political, and informational power centers in US": in that all of them backed an increasingly dysfunctional Republican party, as a means of avoiding problems they didn't want to have solved (post industrial areas, police violence, fake news, money politics and so on)
The reverse applies to Democrats, who are sufficiently unafraid of their leadership that they occasionally engage openly in collaboration with the enemy.
> The margins were extremely thin in 2020, and there were many sketchy things going on around mail-in ballots and stuff.
These allegations from Trump supporters have been disproved in court many times. What will iy take for you to admit that he's misusing his power to target people who disagree with his election lies?
Considering how ill-treated Trump and his supporters have been and still are by courts, it is no wonder that they don't trust the courts. Regardless of what you or I think, he is going after people he believes are corrupt. The exact same people who targetted him unfairly for years, in some cases. I'm not losing sleep over this.
It's not ill treatment, they're being targeted by courts because they're doing illegal shit.
It's not that libs are avoiding courts because they're favored, it's just that there's nothing to, you know, try them with. They didn't pull an insurrection. They don't constantly make up lies about everything. So...
Here's an article supposedly of Krebs provenance, which implicitly lumps Trump himself in as a "malicious actor".
> can lead to uncertainty in the minds of voters; uncertainty that can be exploited by malicious actors
Maybe not something I would want said or repeated by my administration either, disregarding the veracity.
There's no date or byline either, so according to the authoritative FAQ, if this were to stand, it would be an admission of acting in bad faith.
Given federal government communications sprawl, it's quite a needle, pretty good performance in my opinion to root this out, disregarding sowing doubt about a federated election and who's will specifically it should / will service.
Voter inclusion (who should / may vote) is itself at issue, but even in the assessment here given DOGE findings unveils possible oversights, FWAB in the FAQ is cited to depend in part on SSNs and in light of the DOGE findings regarding 150+ year olds collecting social security, the security assessment itself does not describe a system that is definitively air-tight, or even terribly reassuring, if there's doubt in your mind about who voted, and how.
Musk could also have simply looked up the SSA’s own website, which explains that since September 2015 the agency has automatically stopped benefit payments when anyone reaches the age of 115.
> Trump is a malicious actor. He literally tried to overthrow democracy on January 6!
> Congratulations on empathizing with an authoritarian.
It speaks to the strength of different agency administrators if they can walk into the next oval office, grab the duly elected President by the arm, and say "stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself" over and over again. Putting a stop to that wouldn't be so controversial, I think.
> Stop being so gullible.
You are disregarding the election angle and instead misdirecting, the system of validating votes (according to Krebs' own assessment) is dependent on a system with publicly-known flaws.
I understand that the aim can be to enfranchise and enable more voters, but to that aim my statements are agnostic, except for revealing more facts about the case.
A downvote seems insufficient but I'm really lost for words at how to even reply to this. The tone of reasonableness while posting absolute bonkers insanity is alarming.
Sartre’s quote in anti-semites applies to many of these:
> Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
If the product were to disappear tomorrow, I doubt the real economy would notice the loss of 0.05% in productivity.
[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/02/25/1111207/a-nobel-...
reply