Maybe the polls are off because they outsourced the data collection to India and Republicans are more likely to think a random Indian calling them is a scam.

Uh well, it clearly is a spectrum in terms of comparing insect consciousness to dog consciousness. But no one's been able to explain all the underlying properties in a way that bridges the gap between conscious and non-conscious entities. So we just intuitively settle on assigning a binary yes or no status to everything.

There isn't much of a reason to think human neural networks wouldn't also generate the same output to the same input everytime, if you could perfectly control the inputs. The primary thing that makes humans unpredictable is the neccesity of continiously maintaining coherence to an infinitely complex environment.

I think consciousness as a fundamental determinant of morality is a flawed conceit. Probably not claude, but I think it's possible a Tesla for example has most of what we associate with consciousness at the level of like an insect. But that doesn't inherently mean we need to treat it any differently. There's no moral conclusion that must be drawn.

What if we're already in a leftist time-loop where they sent someone back to stop Trump. And that's the primary cause of TDS. Ultimately leading to a bigger more definitive Trump victory.

Ok the other demographics said no. Now what?

That's no Gaza, it's a space station.

After Grok Bot and OpenAI Dots. Not to be outdone, Anthropic is announcing Tots.

But did it work? If there's strategic reasons to "focus on the issues" you should be able to show that 10 years ago when they made it about the issues, they fixed the problem and the issues no longer exist. Or Black people were convinced, since it was a neutral focus on the issues. Or something to justify this strategy. Otherwise it just seems like youre imposing your own moral desire to "focus on the issues" on reality and calling that strategic.

If you're buying in on Anthropic at a 2 trillion dollar valuation. You're argument is essentially that the entire businesses of SpaceX and Meta, except their AI, are totally worthless. And the reason they're not over 2 trillion is because they're not in the lead on AI

As a tech nerd all of SpaceXs photos are cool. But as a photographer they've recently gotten especially captivating.

We're bringing back ancient forms of combat.

Remember what the Dormouse said Feed your head.

"If it was obligatory upon the Executive to expend all the money appropriated by Congress, I should return the river and harbor bill with my objections... Without enumerating, many appropriations are made for works of purely private or local interest, in no sense national. I can not give my sanction to these, and will take care that during my term of office no public money shall be expended upon them. … Under no circumstances will I allow expenditures upon works not clearly national" -Ulysses S Grant presidency.ucsb.edu/document…

I'm not sure there's really any existing statutory authority to do this. Unless it's some sorta national security thing, or because it's a country that's under sanctions. But like, if we're moderately friendly with India, there's no existing US laws that say the govt can tell businesses not to use India in the supply chain. We couldn't just arbitrarily decide it for some things while generally allowing business with India. Except in the case of the Defense Industry. And also, there's no real distinction in US law around what a "US company" is except in that it needs to have a permenant presence here and do business here, even if it's wholly owned by foreigners. Moreover, even in a case like Nintendo America, which is 100% owned by Nintendo and thus not publicly traded, Nintendo the actual foreign company is on the NYSE. It's a little more convoluted, and only viable for big companies. But if you were to dissolve the US incorporation of Cognizant tomorrow. That wouldn't on its own force it off the NYSE. And it's probably not a good idea to change any of that. However, Trump already keyed in on the power we do have, Tariffs. You can outsource all you want but we can basically zero out any additional profit you were gonna make by using slave labor, when you have to ship the product here, even if you're a wholly American Owned company. And we can also work on some of the incentives to outsource in the first place, via reducing excessive regulations, and fix all the nonsense with social security and payroll taxes.

I hear what you were saying @TheFinalBot1, but she's making a compelling argument as well.

The constitution grants congress the authority to levy taxes and appropriate funds. The president is required to use funds for the appropriated purpose, and for all money taken from the treasury by the executive branch to be appropriated. It doesn't say anything about returning money. This is clearly a form of checks and balances they have on each other. Neither branch can enact the force of govt on its own. And, the context around King Charles I, was the exact opposite of the current one where the king dismissed parliament and levied taxes on his own. The king was doing things. Trump wants to not do things, and the constitution is setup to empower not doing things unless there's broad consensus. Now it's congress trying to use public funds without the permission of the duly elected President of the United States, and the democrats at least also certainly want to have him dismissed. Maybe they're commiting treason, if this is the historical example you want to point to.