Searching through a database of license plates to determine cause for a stop is plainly a warrantless search, SCOTUS is a dumpster who bend over backwards for LE but lets not pretend there's any merit to most of these decisions.
This blog post is way more complex than it needs to be, a lot of what most people are doing with llms right now boils down to using vector databases to provide the "best" info/examples to your prompt. This is a slick marketing page but im not sure what they think they're providing beyond that.
This is what a16z does. A few years ago it was the "Modern Data Stack" and a few years before that it was "DevOps." For some reason, venture capitalists really like making these fancy charts to describe the obvious, and then mostly ignoring them during their investment decisions (or sometimes they make the investments, then they make the charts and put their portfolio companies in the boxes).
To protect their downside risk by seeding the broader marketplace with a narrative which later stage investors and acquirers will be influenced by in making decisions to invest or acquire.
No one said they were going to be free. First of all, they'd be getting a home. Second, yes they should be paid something so they can afford food and other essentials. The point is to help them recover. Just throwing housing or money at them and saying good luck, do whatever you want, isn't going to work. With sponsored work, they can look for better jobs and tell their prospective employers that they've been working for a year or two with no issues at the state/federal job. That would go a long way.
Unless you can cite the source that they actually received that $17B it sure seems like you're looking to punish people for being poor rather than to fix the system which creates the environment and situations that lead to these outcomes. That's not going to work. It never has worked and it never will.
lmao not every law is "regulatory capture", sometimes laws make dangerous activities that most of us are forced into (like driving) a bit safer as better technology becomes available.
Seriously, we're talking about a company that Microsoft invested 10 billion dollars into, this is very powerful technology that will affect our lives. They didn't invest all that money because it will make the world a better place, they did so because they see the opportunity to make a LOT of money and have the ability to steer where this technology goes while also reducing transparency. Why shouldn't we view that with suspicion, you don't have to roll over just because there's a lot of money involved or because some millionaire/billionaire might get treated "unfairly".
Just because there's some bad stuff out there doesn't mean that opening the flood gates to higher amounts of more advanced bad stuff is acceptable. It's absolutely reasonable to look at a new technology and try to figure out if it is likely to bring about more harm than good and take action based on that assessment.
"heckling should not enjoy freedom of speech" exactly, this is just the marketplace of ideas deciding that the speaker is either bringing nothing of value to the table or that his reputation for previous speech is too poor. The idea that a Federal Judge is somehow having his free speech rights violated by a bunch of college students is insane, the man has argued before the SCOTUS and has a lifetime appointment which allows him to affect the lives of millions of Americans. It's becoming increasingly clear that "Free Speech" is just the idea that the powerful speak and the commoners listen.
