They've leveraged the culture wars to the point that a good chunk of the rural, economically disadvantaged voters are cool with a northeastern elite billionaire looting the country.
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” — Lyndon B. Johnson, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lbj-convince-the-lowest-wh...
The quotation is not condescending to "the lowest white man", but rather is explaining a political/propaganda strategy that was active at the time. Up until that time the racists were inter-mixed between the two parties:
And the fact that people respond to it by attacking the very groups they've been set against rather than the government and elites manipulating them proves how well it works.
See also the apopleptic rage the rural right went into when Hillary Clinton made her "deplorables" remark. Even though she was clearly and explicitly talking about the white supremacists and racists infiltrating the Trump camp - something she was entirely correct about mind you - they chose to trauma bond with the white supremacists and rally around a billionaire pedophile rather than concede a point to a "liberal" in good faith.
Liberals are going to find it very comforting that they're not one of "the lowest white men". The people the quote is referring to won't be persuaded at all. It solves nothing. There's no solution offered to the propaganda problem. It is the flip side to the culture wars that it is describing.
Well then fix the laws, and/or advocate to fix the laws. Laws must exist in order to have a society, and no defeatist attitude will ever fix them. Laws won't fix by themselves, a majority needs to need them fixed. And then APPLY them.
But in the meantime follow the bad law? If the law said that you aren't supposed to give water to the people that cross the desert would you follow that even if the person is dying of thirst?
Oh dear, the desert thirst seems to be a beloved metaphor on HN... Anyway: you can and should have both. Because it's wrong and backwards to just disrespect laws - it breaks said society structure - without actively trying to do something to replace its wrong pillars. It might be more poetic or movie-like to be the hidden hero sharing water, but without a law change, when you'll be eventually busted (because you will) the stupid desert crossers will dry out. Literally.
Cumulonimbus has been separated from its etymological roots. It now refers to the physics that can produce deep convection, high clouds, and the formation of an anvil shape (along with lightning, etc). The convection that produces a cumulonimbus rain cloud is present in a pyrocumulonimbus cloud. The word isn't wrong.
I'm not sure if you know what you're talking about? Flock cameras have definitely involved in detecting people who come into SF in stolen cars or with stolen plates, who proceed to go on sprees of breaking into cars and stealing things.
I really dislike Flock as a company, but their cameras absolutely do get used in the way they're publicly pitched.
Flock doing bad things does not justify coming into this thread and stating as fact things that are patently false.
Plates can be retroactively searched, backtracked, subjects followed back to other cars and tracked back to where they left from, or other cars that are repeatedly in the area prior to cars being stolen before being used for other crimes can be identified and tracked backward. A plate doesn’t need to be flagged prior to a crime. It’s the same way they can tell which tolls and which plate readers a vehicle has passed recently when running a plate, and is frequently used to identify or trip up drug runners.
Translation: you are wrong and seem to be making things up to fit your position, because this is exactly what people have a problem with — that this data is retained regardless of suspicion.
I wonder how long it takes before someone instructs an LLM to design and launch a "Morris Worm 2.0" and cripple the Internet for a good while. Might even wind up happening by accident (again).
The problem is that if the AI companies pass through the actual costs they're incurring, then charges to those companies will >10x.
If the companies don't see that kind of value (so LLMs don't become dramatically better in some kind of quantum leap from where they are now), they won't want to pay those costs. Already, most AI projects in corporations tend to fail.
If the efficiency of LLMs gets 10x better, then either corporations will "private cloud" their own AI or start using competitors that aren't carrying those kinds of debt loads from the "gold rush" phase.
