The plutocracy is forgetting that a working and productive populace - with fair wages and representation - is their end of the deal for disproportionally benefitting from the fruits of labor from others; and directly prevents violence against the status quo. See: The top articles in the last 3 days.
Sure, but all they have to do is not hold up their end of the bargain. Who enforces that? These are just norms from 60 years ago that the rich decided they no longer have to follow.
They’ve started treating incorporation like a modern day papal indulgence, something that absolves whatever they do in the name of profit. It doesn’t. Limited liability buys you forgiveness in court but it doesn’t buy you forgiveness in the court of public opinion. Doing harm for a company is still doing harm.
Huh, COMPLETELY off-topic and bordering on weird, but I saw something on your profile that was eerily reminding to an idiosyncrasy I've personally possessed. I clicked your profile and saw the first line in your bio was a hexcode for salmon/persimmon color; my favorite color as well, and I used to religiously use it in much of my projects as #FF7256 - it's even my HN banner color. I was curious on what the color or its application means to you?
Saying he got confused and disoriented is and interesting conclusion to make of that interview. He was defensive from the onset and even went combative when Carlson continued down a specific line of questioning, which he allegedly did at the request of the victim's family.
I don't see how talking about abject failures of leadership and policy response in the first term is "outdated" when the second term is essentially a doubling down on these derelictions of duty.
Are we just supposed to forget those past failures in favor of focusing on the current catastrophe? What tariff tantrum? What Greenland treachery? Don't you know we've always been at war with Iran?
Ha! This is the first time I've even tried the Win10 Search bar in months after constant disappointment from it, and it doesn't even load for me nowadays:
Appealing to the pragmatic and the "game theory" of complying with authoritarian rule that you don't have power over - because the other party that you don't have any power over will benefit from it - is a zero-sum argument.
Procurement decisions are not authoritarian rule. A government agency deciding that a vendor doesn't meet its operational requirements and setting a timeline to transition off that vendor is one of the most ordinary functions of institutional management. Every organization, public or private, does this. Authoritarian rule involves the coercive suppression of rights or autonomy. Choosing not to renew a contract with a provider who has voluntarily excluded itself from your use case is the opposite of coercion; it's respecting that provider's choice and acting accordingly.
The "zero-sum" label is equally off-base. Zero-sum describes a situation where one party's gain is necessarily another's loss, and that is precisely the nature of military capability competition. If an adversary fields unrestricted AI systems and you field restricted ones, the gap is real and the consequences are asymmetric. You don't have to like that reality, but calling it a zero-sum argument as though it's a rhetorical trick misidentifies what's actually a structural condition. The term you seem to be reaching for is something closer to "fear-based reasoning" or "false dilemma," but neither of those applies cleanly here either, because the competitive dynamic being described is well-documented and not hypothetical.
If there's a genuine objection to be made, and there may well be, it has to engage with the specifics: whether the restrictions in question actually matter operationally, whether the transition plan is proportionate, whether the policy creates worse risks than it solves. That's where the real debate is.
reply