Why is this country insisting on this ridiculous infighting? Why do you have a democracy if your bureaucracy is set up to resist the person the people elected? Didn't this exact sort of thing happen when a democrat was elected, the republicans basically stonewalled all progress? Now the dem bureaucracy is stonewalling the republicans? Is this how checks and balances is supposed to work? Am I being naive in thinking it wasn't always like this?
We elect Presidents to faithfully execute the law, not Dictators to ignore it. The courts have always ruled against executive for disobeying the law. Preventing any one branch from amassing too much power is the whole reason the system of checks and balances exists.
The system, while sometimes aggravatingly slow to change, has allowed us as a country to continually operate under the same system of government with peaceful transfers of power for nearly 250 years.
Executive orders are shot down by courts all the time. And it always starts in lower courts, with appeals going up to higher courts (both sides can appeal!). This is true for any president, Democrat or Republican, the judicial system is a check on executive power, with the understanding that the executive gets to nominate judges and congress gets to approve them.
It is really weird how many people don't get this, and think Trump is getting special treatment! And an executive order with lofty legal reasoning will always be challenged. And judges on either side...they actually have some idealistic notion that law matters, not who nominated, so the 3 judges who unanimously decided against trump: one was a Trump appointee, one was an Obama appointee, and one was a Bush appointee. In an idea system, judges try to be impartial to law (they don't have to, and their only check is that they can be impeached by congress).
The discourse coming from the political right is clearly meant to attack the Judicial branch. They are going after what they call "Partisan judges" or "Activist judges" or "Radical leftist judges" or "Clinton and Obama appointees". They want to remove all judges who do not let them support whatever the administration wants to do.
> Is this how checks and balances is supposed to work?
Yes, check and balances assume a conservative* theory of government in which politicians should be restrained and changes should be require overwhelming support to implement.
*- not conservative in the sense of political ideology, but conservative in the sense of attempting to conserve.
> White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller said to X, "The judicial coup is out of control."
So? That's the same overheated rhetoric they trot out every time the courts rule against Trump. It's pretty tired by now. It's like they can't even come up with a new set of inflammatory adjectives; they're always reaching for the the same old ones.
The White House deputy chief of staff making a post on X has exactly zero to do with whether the decision was right or wrong.
In particular, the Trump camp acts like every time the courts rule on the legality of Trump's actions it's an overreach of judicial authority. They either failed Civics 101, or they want everyone else to forget what it said. This is the courts' job.
Can someone link the actual products they're talking about? ChatGPT isn't exactly great at forming emotional bonds, but I could see some other app doing this.
> We conducted extensive research on social AI companions as a category, and specifically evaluated popular social AI companion products including Character.AI, Nomi, Replika, and others, testing their potential harm across multiple categories.
You’d be surprised. I think it varies with the update, but I’ve often suspected that it has been optimized for role-play at some level. As OAI looks for mass-market fit I expect this to continue.
ChatGPT is just a really good bullshitter. It can’t even get some basic financials analysis correct, and when I correct it, it will flip a sign from + to -. Then I suggest I’m not sure and it goes back to +. The formula is definitely a -, but it just confidently spits out BS.
Its not even technically correct as the original sentence was "...generate profit so great their boss was able to finance his own private space program." They didn't say he funded his space project with amazon profits, they are saying that as a result of the profits bezos was able to fund a space program. Which is undoubtedly true as the amazon equity wouldn't be worth much if amazon wasn't making any money .
Eh, not really. This is just, in practice, how profits are extracted from this sort of company (and most sorts of companies; for various reasons, the phenomenon of a company paying out most of its profit in dividends is dying out) at the moment.
These days, the formal difference between the two is really hard to grasp, and mostly depends on which way accountants find they’ll pay less taxes.
There is no point nitpicking someone because they used one term instead of the other: Bezos’ fortune is derived from Amazon’s activity, and the rest of us has no interest in changing our vocabulary to abide by some obscure tax code rule.
Adding to that, most of these workers are probably working on Amazons unprofitable or barely profitable business. AWS is most of Amazons profits, retail was losing money till very recently and maybe recently is profitable
It gives the unwitting a chance to lose their money. “Do your homework” against professionals whose job it is to make your homework as difficult as possible, including the very tactic you seem to be arguing for.
Meanwhile, if things such as SPACs are such solid investments, why are they pulling such weasely stunts to begin with? (A rhetorical question, at least it is to me.)
Yeah; you shouldn't be trading pink sheets if you're an unwitting investor. It's there to make your job as easy as possible. You shouldn't be trading OTC or pink sheets or any of these things.
SPACs can be solid investments. A SPAC is just a reverse acquisition to avoid listing costs, or sometimes because you're putting faith in a capital allocator. Again, investment carries risk of loss. I'm not sure what you're being critical of. Are you saying that we should only allow companies to go public through investment banks taking millions of dollars of fees?
The NASDAQ should not become Pancakeswap, Polymarket, or pump.fun. If you want to invest in those products, you know where to find them (and it's not the NASDAQ).
Unfortunately, the next question becomes “is consumer reports considered an ad” etc.
It becomes a question of what truly is an ad?
That said I appreciate this sort of thought; it would even be nice for it to be implemented, but whether it could be enforced is another question. At that point it then becomes a question of who you allow to advertise.
For a long time, hedge funds were not allowed to
solicit investments publicly under rule 502c of reg D.
I could see grounds to restrict things further; I’m sick of restless leg syndrome drug treatment ads…
reply