AGI is not a new term. It’s been in use since the 90s and the concept has been around for much longer.

It’s not new today, but it post-dates “AI” and hit the same problem then.

If she’s the only alternative in the primary race and he has a heart attack or something, I would assume that she winds up becoming the Republican nominee.

republic candidate

Republican candidate

the Pixels are actually worth it and very very good phones.

Not the longest-battery-life devices.

Open source community have their own chat system since 2014 (Matrix).

I think that IRC is kind of the original open chat system.

EDIT:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Relay_Chat

IRC was created by Jarkko Oikarinen in August 1988 to replace a program called MUT (MultiUser Talk) on a BBS called OuluBox at the University of Oulu in Finland, where he was working at the Department of Information Processing Science. Jarkko intended to extend the BBS software he administered, to allow news in the Usenet style, real time discussions and similar BBS features.

The rest of the world doesn’t use SMS/RCS/iMessage as much as WhatsApp and the like

SMSes use a standard available to any app. WhatsApp is controlled by a single company.

If you were arguing that XMPP or something like that should be used instead of SMS, okay, that’s one thing, but I have a hard time favoring a walled garden.

So, first, that text is from the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution, which defines legal rights.

But, secondly, the right to “pursuit of happiness” needs to be understood in the (somewhat euphemistic) language of the time. It is generally understood as referring to a right to property; this right was a core dispute in the American Revolution, and mirrors a nearly-identical “life, liberty” phrase from John Locke where the term used is explicitly “property”. That is, the right is not to never feel unhappy or depressed, but rather to not have one’s property taken away by non-elected parties.

https://www.crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/natural-rights.html

The Tea Act, which imposed taxes on American colonists, was a critical dispute in the American Revolution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act

The Tea Act 1773 (13 Geo. 3. c. 44) was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain. The principal objective was to reduce the massive amount of tea held by the financially troubled British East India Company in its London warehouses and to help the struggling company survive.[1] A related objective was to undercut the price of illegal tea, smuggled into Britain’s North American colonies. This was supposed to convince the colonists to purchase Company tea on which the Townshend duties were paid, thus implicitly agreeing to accept Parliament’s right of taxation. Smuggled tea was a large issue for Britain and the East India Company, since approximately 86% of all the tea in America at the time was smuggled Dutch tea.

At the time, it was generally accepted that in England, only elected officials had the power to tax; this is one of the rights of Englishmen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Englishmen

The “rights of Englishmen” are the traditional rights of English subjects and later English-speaking subjects of the British Crown. In the 18th century, some of the colonists who objected to British rule in the thirteen British North American colonies that would become the first United States argued that their traditional[1] rights as Englishmen were being violated. The colonists wanted and expected the rights that they (or their forebears) had previously enjoyed in England: a local, representative government, with regards to judicial matters (some colonists were being sent back to England for trials) and particularly with regards to taxation.[2] Belief in these rights subsequently became a widely accepted justification for the American Revolution.[3][4]

However, American colonists had no elected MPs in Parliament. Parliament was willing neither to grant them elected MPs, nor to refrain from taxation and have locally-elected legislatures perform taxation. Parliament’s counterargument was that Americans had “virtual representation”, in that MPs elected by people in the UK – though not elected by American colonists – had their best interests at heart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_representation

Virtual representation was the idea that the members of Parliament, including the Lords and the Crown-in-Parliament, reserved the right to speak for the interests of all British subjects, rather than for the interests of only the district that elected them or for the regions in which they held peerages and spiritual sway.[1] Virtual representation was the British response to the First Continental Congress in the American colonies. The Second Continental Congress asked for representation in Parliament in the Suffolk Resolves, also known as the first Olive Branch Petition. Parliament claimed that their members had the well being of the colonists in mind. The Colonies rejected this premise.

I don’t think that this is a control move.

My assumption is that that’s gonna get thrown out because they don’t have standing. Probably some kind of case law along those lines already, since I figure someone’s probably tried that before.

googles

Looks like it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v._United_States

Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, et al. is a climate-related lawsuit filed in 2015 by 21 youth plaintiffs against the United States and several executive branch officials. Filing their case in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, the plaintiffs, represented by the non-profit organization Our Children’s Trust, include Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, the members of Martinez’s organization Earth Guardians, and climatologist James Hansen as a “guardian for future generations”.

They call for the government to offer “both declaratory and injunctive relief for their claim—specifically, a declaration of the federal government’s fiduciary role in preserving the atmosphere and an injunction of its actions which contravene that role.”

In January 2020, a Ninth Circuit panel dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue for an injunction.

Legal actions to affect climate change by federal and state-level governments have been attempted since the 1990s; one of the first known cases was led by Antonio Oposa, a Philippine lawyer that represented a class-action suit of 43 students against the Philippine government to protect a forest surrounding their village.

Since 2011, Our Children’s Trust has been filing various state and federal lawsuits on behalf of youth, though most of these have been dismissed by courts, as courts generally have not ruled that access to a clean environment is a right that can be litigated against.[8][5][6] Such cases are also generally dismissed as lawsuits cannot be initiated by “generalized grievances”, and require plaintiffs with standing to sue and can demonstrate concrete harm that the government has done, and that the courts can at least partially redress the harm by order of the court.[9] Further, cases cannot be brought to court if they deal with a “political question” which cannot be resolved by actions of Congress and the President.[9]

The “political question” bit should be inapplicable, since this is a company, but the lack of standing to sue for climate change probably does apply.

I assume that this is a crowd-pleaser by the California executive, that they expect it to get tossed out but want the political points.

That ratio doesn’t matter.

What matters is the value derived from some prohibited activity relative to the fine/lawsuits resulting from that activity.

Let’s say that Company A sells oranges, and uses some pesticide that isn’t approved, and gets a fine for it.

Let’s say that Company B sells apples, and improperly claimed that the apples were fresher than they were to grocery stores and is sued for that.

Let’s say that Company A and Company B merge and form Company C. The value of Company C would be larger, but it would make no sense for either of the above two disincentives to be larger. Being part of Company C doesn’t make engaging in bad behavior more-desirable than it does for when A and B were separate, and so the disincentives one establishes for bad behavior shouldn’t grow either.

No, they are not. They can stop working; they just won’t be able to continue their job under more-favorable conditions.

That still is not slavery. The person in question is still not compelled to work.

deleted by creator

Yeah, sorry, but no. That’s not slavery. If you’re present in the country illegally and working illegally and could be returned home at any time, you may not be making as much as you would if you were present legally, but you are not compelled to work. You can always terminate working and return to the country where you are legally supposed to be. If you choose to be in Country A illegally and working there rather than in Country B legally and working (for less) there, that is your choice, and you are not being compelled to work.

Slavery entails someone being compelled to work.

The kind where America is expected to go solve everyone’s problems

Well, the current government in Mali is the result of a military coup. The previous, elected government was friendly with France, and the new, military coup crowd is friendly with Russia.

Then when the coup guys decided that they didn’t need to hold elections when they said they would, they got condemned by the US.

https://www.france24.com/en/africa/20220112-un-security-council-falls-short-of-imposing-new-sanctions-on-mali-after-elections-delay

Russia, China block UN Security Council from supporting new sanctions on Mali

Russia and China blocked the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday from supporting new sanctions on Mali for its military leaders’ decision to delay next month’s elections until 2026, a blow to the restoration of democracy in the troubled West African nation.

So I vaguely imagine that said government probably isn’t asking the US to become involved, because the US’s position is that they should have held elections.

More-generally, if you see something of this form:

community@instance.name

Where the community above is:

pixelart@lemmyloves.art

You can just plonk that into the search field in kbin, and it’ll bring up a page where you can subscribe to it.

You can also link directly to the search – and doing so apparently also works on lemmy servers, since the URL format is the same:

[Search link](/search?q=pixelart%40lemmyloves.art)

Yields:

Search link

When talking about computers, it was always 1024.

The problem is that each time you go up another unit, the binary and decimal units diverge further.

It rarely mattered much when you’re talking about the difference between kibibytes and kilobytes. In the 1980s, with the size of memory and storage available, the difference was minor, so using the decimal unit was a pretty good approximation for most things. But as we deal with larger amounts of data, the error becomes more-significant.

This is not a feature that a device with limited available power to consume needs.

I don’t disagree, but I’m not sure that that is the long-run game.

I think that many of us consider Android to be a supplemental platform to a “heavyweight” computing platform, like Linux, MacOS, or Windows.

My understanding is that an increasing number of younger people don’t know how to use those platforms. Just a smartphone platform.

And I see attempts to shift towards heavier-weight Android devices.

It may be that the aim here is to move towards larger Android devices.

Only the EU can save Android in the US now

That sounds a little melodramatic. Apple has a slightly higher marketshare in the US, and that’s the case in few places:

https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/what-google-needs-to-do-for-android-to-overcome-apple-and-iphone-in-2023/

Google has fallen second place to Apple in the Android vs. iPhone war for the first time in over a decade.

From a global perspective, Apple’s dominance is an outlier. The US, Canada and Japan are the only countries where Apple has an edge over Android. Everywhere else Android leads, usually by a wide margin.

And, I gotta say:

But this has also brought a rising tide of elitism, as some US iPhone owners perceive Android as cheaper and inferior.

I think that maybe, the point where one’s favored platform has slightly under 50% marketshare in an – admittedly large – country is maybe just a bit premature to start wallowing in victimhood.

https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/01/21/

It doesn’t help Android OEMs that Apple makes it exceptionally difficult to leave its ecosystem or switch between platforms. For starters, the company’s services are either exclusive to its platforms (iMessage) or woefully underbaked on Android (see Apple TV Plus and Facetime)

iOS is more of a walled garden, that’s true, but Google is not entirely innocent here either.

I think that some of it is that most people don’t really carefully analyze the sum total what a politician has said or is saying and all the other related material. Which is reasonable – I mean, I know that this is a politics forum, but for most people, following politics is not a huge part of what they do. It’d be really inefficient, in fact, if they did.

I think that a lot of support for politicians has more to do whether they’ve made statements that a potential voter agrees with in the very limited material about them that that voter sees. Not just for Trump, but for any politician.

So if you’re asking someone about Trump, they’re making something of a gut call based on the limited material they see of him.

Honestly, I think that the more-interesting issue here isn’t really Trump, but the fact that Trump’s tactics have worked fairly well. The problem here isn’t really Trump. He’s just a symptom of having a political decision process that can be gamed the way he’s gamed it. We do not want to encourage politicians who lose an election to have an incentive to make bogus claims that the election was rigged, because part of what we want the political system to do is to permit coming to a consensus as to leadership. That undermines that.

But there’s nothing unique about Trump that permits him to do that. If he could do it, then so could another politician. And I would imagine that sooner or later, more people probably will, if they think that it is to their advantage.

That is, I think what probably needs to be fixed is the system.