That there is no perfect defense. There is no protection. Being alive means being exposed; it’s the nature of life to be hazardous—it’s the stuff of living.

  • 134 Posts
  • 34 Comments
Joined 6 months ago
cake
Cake day: June 9th, 2024

help-circle



















  • I am a long-time Ars reader and subscriber. I am not American, but I always found their articles on various public policy issues to be interesting and fascinating.

    One particularly fascinating element is the callousness of the various “legal arguments” used to justify (and enable) various crimes/corruption schemes.

    “I didn’t know this was illegal … it’s the fences fault … we sold both voice and data info, so umm it’s legal.”

    Motherfuckers, you were selling real-time location of your customers to random thugs. By any real understanding of the term “justice”, you should be locked up for decades with full asset seizure.

    No sane person would agree for you to sell their real-time location data to random goons. You know this and you dare to come up with this gibberish?

    It’s not even so much the corruption/criminality that is fascinating (things like that happen everywhere), but the arrogance and callousness inherent to their world salad.

















  • This is the kind of thing that makes me support use of extra-judicial methods (at least in a temporary and limited context) against global oligarchs and senior lackeys.

    The host then followed up with, “Do you think we can meet AI’s energy without total blowing out climate goals?” and Schmidt answered with, “We’re not going to hit the climate goals anyway because we’re not organized to do it — and the way to do it is with the ways that we’re talking about now — and yes, the needs in this area will be a problem. But I’d rather bet on AI solving the problem than constraining it and having the problem if you see my plan.”

    This is outright malicious. How exactly would AI “solve the problem”? Later on in the article (I am not watching the propaganda video) alludes to “AI … will make energy generation systems at least 15% more efficient or maybe even better” but he clearly just made that up on the spot. And at any rate, even if “AI” helps discover a method to make (all?) energy generation 15% more efficient that would still require trillion-dollar investments to modify current energy generation plants using the new technology.

    Who is Schmidt to say that the returns of using the total spend in the above-mentioned scenario wouldn’t be better used on investing into wind and solar?