Ah, but what about hunting other “boats”. Cuase ships and boats aren’t the same… most of the time.

That’s why I threw in the maybe. Anything is possible. On the witness thing… I am sure it wasn’t a small boat. He could just go to a room and witness nothing.

You should really read up. While it is state dependent, emotional abuse is cover under mandatory reporting in most state.

I get that you’re not too bright, didn’t read the article, and didn’t really read what I wrote, but… acting like nazis and telling teachers what they can and can’t say to parents isn’t the way to defeat the nazis.

Wait, am I missing something? This just says they have the right, not any kind of requirement. So basically saying teachers have free speach. This doesn’t seem controversial to me. It’s a cornerstone of the constitution that the current administration is trying to take away. I would be upset if they were ordered to report it… but I am also against them being ordered not to. The majority of teachers I have met, want the best for the kids. And they would only want to even bring up the subject if they thought the kid needed help in some way, and that the parents could provide. Sure there are exceptions, but tieing the hands of the majority to enable punishment of a minority isn’t the answer. In reality, if a teacher tells a parent that thier kid is using different pronouns, and the parent gets very upset, the teacher is a mandatory reporter. So if any reasonable person would think the parent may in some way cause harm, which would include inducing suicide, they have to report it. So they are already incentivized to not say anything, and in many cases could be disciplined if they did. So even though this judge sounds like a jerk, overall, he has the right idea. Teachers shouldn’t be censored.

Sure maybe, but he wouldn’t have stuck around to literally witness the killing and disposal, which I think is the claim. And also, he has been pretty blatant about how he likes fit and thin women. I’m not seeing him wanting to rape a pregnant girl.

It doesn’t really seem like the kind of thing he would be around for. He has others do the dirty work, and thinks it’s below him to just be around people he isn’t presently takening advantage of (as in, unless he was doing her at the time, why would he be there). Doesn’t mean there wasn’t some strange combination of events that caused him to be there, and I can’t see him caring one way or another about the baby, so he would totally be aware of it and not care.

One would think. But if you read the article, these amendments have a history of being “interpreted” away. New laws were passed to shore them up. But the new laws are being “interpreted” away again.

That because the human species has done so much, it must be good.

And the usual bit about your productive output being the measure of your value.

All said and done. We clearly have only scratched surface of scientific knowledge. So it is pretty much a safe bet that the vast majority of what we “know” is wrong. Especially anything complicated.

The gov owns a piece of intel now. If that isn’t enough, consider that they now have a competitive advantage in that government agencies are less likely to go after them for abusing customer trust and such. Intel will need to exploit that to get ahead. Also, there is constant talk of breaking up the company into parts and such. Not much stability there.

For AI, the largest computing expense is usually training. Individual uses are much smaller. And a model that has a narrow scope like flying can have even less demand. Also, they already have autonomous drones. They don’t even need AI. The AI part would probably be like target selection or strategy. And of course, since when did governments care about oversight in a warzone.

Well, maybe not useful to you. But to hackers, which at the government level are military, it can be very useful. They can use AI to exploit a publically disclosed exploit faster than people can patch thier systems. That can give one country access to the sensitive data of a different government. And of course, hacking utilities and infrastructure can give one country a lot of power over another. Why do you think a Russia is working to enable itself to isolate it’s internet from the rest of the world. Can’t hack what you can’t connect to. And of course, it doesn’t even have to matter if it is useful, as long as the governments of the world think they can’t let other governments get ahead of them.

I don’t see it as exponential. Plenty of up front costs that have a decent appreciation period. I think they can prop it up for 10 to 20 years though. And there is always the chance of some breakthrough to either extend that or pay it off. I expect more of the former though.

The same thing as everything else… money. If the gov dumps money into the bubble it won’t pop. I mean it’s not sustainable, but it can work for a pretty long time.

I wouldn’t go intel. That place is a shitshow. Also, I am not so sure the AI bubble will burst. World governments see it as sn arms race. So they will keep that industry propped up.

Go slower to go faster.

I didn’t ignore it. It specifically means states can’t make laws that go against the treaties. That is all. It does not mean they are laws like any other law. Congress passes laws to say things are bad. Not everything that is technically a law is the same as something that a person can be put on trial for. But speaking of things being ignored. You ignored that congress has refused to approve any of the updates to the geneva convention. So you would have to check if the things that were done are even in the part they ratified. Even if they are, by not ratifying the updates, they have made clear they no longer support it. So again, it is highly questionable as to if the things they did ratify can be considered laws like normal bills that are drafted and passed by congress.

That part of the constitution only says that federal overrules state. Meaning states can’t make laws that disagree with federal laws or treaties. By your interpretation, states would be responsible for enforcing federal laws, which is clearly not the case. This is a well established interpretation of this part of the constitution and is taught in most high schools.

I get that you don’t understand subtle differences. Ratifyng a treaty is not the same as passing a law. In your head it is, but in a lawyers head it most certainly is not. They will argue about what legal precedence applies and what doesn’t based on the origin of the “law”.

The manual of course is an interpretation by the administration. Not a judge. So the judge can feel free to completely ignore any and all of it. They could litterally write that by thier interpretation, they don’t believe we need follow the geneva convention. Nothing stops them. So no, saying someone went against the manual doesn’t mean they broke the Geneva convention.

Last, the international laws are not only the geneva convention. There were several updates. The US did not ratify ANY of the updates. So no, the geneva convention rules are not all law in the US.

You are way off in your understanding of these things and are confidently wrong on a lot of them.

It being law in the US is highly questionable. But again, the op wasn’t talking about the geneva convention, it was talking about the manual. And while the manual is “A” interpretation of international law, it isn’t the only one. So he can’t be tried for going against the manual. If someone wants to claim he violated the parts of the grneva convention that congress agreed to, which is not all. That would be different. But that isn’t what the post was about. And if they could reasonably do so, they probably would have.