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.
Portal. It’s older than you think, but still solid.
How nice of you to only say endanger… surely many have died already.
He didn’t break any US laws because the manual isn’t law, and the action happened outside the US. So I think all that can happen is he gets impeached by congress.
I wouldn’t say it is obvious they won’t decline. This particular event could sway it significantly. If they end up throwing the admiral under the bus, I would bet people would think more about illegal orders in the future.
Only if hegseth and trump wanted him to. Which they don’t.
On the visa and Mastercard thing I very much agree. In theory they are a business, and can chose who to do business with. But the free market pressures don’t exist to impact the decisions they make. So instead of them being influenced by customer sentiment, they are actually influenced by large organization with an agenda. That agenda is usually just a BS reason to build the organization and make specific people rich. It doesn’t represent the will of the people. So… they should be treated more like a utility. Places are refusing to take cash these days, so it is an easy argument that they function like a utility.
Interesting point. But in general, who are the people complaining in the wrong spot. I suspect people basically are complaining in thier echo chambers… social media. And likely noone cares. But then the media jumps in and picks it up. So is the media to blame? I read a story about a lady in Britain I think who had like 89 followers and made a statement. It went viral. Suddenly her statement to her echo chamber was in the news. It ruined her life actually.
So are we saying the media should be banned on reporting what is said inside echo chambers, or are we saying public posting of opinions should be banned?
People are free to pressure retailers on what to sell and what not too. Saying they can’t would be far worse. And the retailer is doing the job of making money… by following the 2ishes of the populace. This is the free market capitalist society we live in. Completly sucks, but it is consistent.
That is what he is saying while trying not to make it obvious he is saying that. Clearly hegseth ordered it.
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.