and is doing it likely as someone who is horribly misguided

This is Abigail Disney. She's rich but she's not the brightest crayon in the box politically. Her PhD is in philosophy and her dissertation was about the role of romanticized violence and war in American life. Her lists of philanthropy is what one would expect from a run of the mill rich person level activism. Tossing money at the high level stuff, never diving deeper to the root of the problem.

I'm not dissing the lady, but she absolutely falls into the misguided on this aspect.

Thanks man.

Yeah with Chevron gone this is fluff talk at this point. Nothing can be regulated without the Courts giving it an okay or Congress explicitly allowing it verbatim. The Loper Bright case paired with Relentless, Inc. has basically nullified novel regulatory authority without the Courts consenting.

The framers anticipated that courts would often confront statutory ambiguities and expected that courts would resolve them by exercising independent legal judgment

— Chief Justice Roberts (Loper Bright Enterprises, et al, v. Raimondo)

Additionally, Robert's indicated that the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 has always provided Judicial review of every regulation and that everything since that point must now be reviewed by the Courts.

Biden is indicating that he's going to produce a heat standard via OSHA which was formed in 1971, so OSHA's ability to even make that standard and potentially their full authority is under question now. OSHA isn't going to be doing jack crap for easily the next twenty years for the Courts to fully review their broad authority, unless SCOTUS overturns this judgement. For all we know, SCOTUS might hold OSHA to follow the exact letter of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 which would neuter them in a heartbeat. Luckily things like the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 which prohibits child labor in particular kinds of jobs will fall outside of that review and OSHA will still be able to enforce that kind of stuff since it's explicit that OSHA enforces any labor law prior to the 1970 act.

There is literally nothing any President going forward can promise without Congress completely having the President's back or the Justices agreeing with the President. Basically, without at least 2 out of 3 branches agreeing, literal nothing will happen. This is literally the setup nobody will enjoy and will cripple Federal Government for the foreseeable future without those rare instances where Congress and the President are of the same political party.

And what exactly is there to stop the opposition from doing the same thing?

Process. The same that that puts barriers on this discussion from AOC. The entire impeachment process is the understanding of the people who created this country, to have a political process that is departed from the legal process. That's why being impeached doesn't also mean criminally convicted and vice versa. Historically, if you were a vassal of the lord and had your fief removed, you couldn't hold court with your lord AND you basically were penniless with the potential to end up in jail. The entire impeachment process is to separate those two things. That's why the process is spelled out fully in the Constitution and the execution solely left to Congress to implement.

There entire point of an impeachment is to execute some political justice without having legal justice married to it. What stops anyone from just abusing the process is the process itself and what it indicates for functioning government. If the goal is have no functioning government, then there isn't anything that stops anyone from abuse. But no functioning government means that those in Congress would lose power, and a loss of power means they become less enticing for lobbyist to enact agendas, for people to seek recourse, and for States to enhance power within the vacuum.

So an abuse of that power would end with them loosing more and more power. This is the same reason why Congress has had a hard time really pinning impeachment and contempt charges and have talked about inherent contempt for Garland (which inherent contempt is basically using Congress to enforce a contempt charge via the Sergeant-at-arms doing the arresting and Congress inventing a "trail" system all of their own outside of the Judicial system... which by the way SCOTUS way back in the 1930s, the last time this was used, indicated that THAT specific instance was not a violation of habeas corpus, but trying to ring Garland up on inherent contempt and trying to put him in Congress jail, would be such a complex process and likely wouldn't survive a habeas corpus challenge, but who knows at this point? For all we know SCOTUS may be completely cool with Congress tossing people into Congress jail without a proper trail. But of course that brings with it ALL KINDS of ramifications about our Federal government jailing people in a a jail completely ran by Congress and outside the entire legal system, but I digress).

Long story short, all of this stuff is political process. And you do all of this to further a political agenda to the public. But if the public isn't backing that action, it has the ability to backfire in that entire you don't get to come back to Congress or you weaken the overall power of the Federal government. So you have to look at the long term goal of anything you want to do with this process. Like the inherent contempt vote got delayed after the first Presidential debate. Biden's performance was so bad that Republicans feel that they got what they wanted. The whole Garland audio tapes, the GOP wanted them so that they could play back the tapes to the public and show that Biden was losing his marbles. But now since the debate, there's little reasons for the GOP to go down the tossing Garland into Congress jail and going down a path that's likely to not play well for anyone except their most harden supporters.

The process limits the process. That's what prevent the whole "same thing".

Are we going to replace the court?

I mean, yeah, that's the goal. SCOTUS has had about a dozen cases that they've overturned decades long, and in some cases century long, established rule. One or two per lifetime of a justice is a lot to completely overturn. This court has overturned nearly a dozen long established rulings. The entire point of a justice system is to bring about stability to the political process. Congress answers to the public, and the public can change their mind often, so random laws flying over the place isn't unusual. SCOTUS is not elected and thus they faintly answer to the public. So they need to have some stability to maintain legitimacy. Even Robert's talked about this in the ruling that overturned Roe and felt the majority was going too far.

So I think if the court itself is saying that it is ruining their own legitimacy, bringing them up into the political process to answer to these statements the court itself is making is fair game. And I don't think that's unfair to mention in that whole process. Judges don't answer to the public, so justices that massively change the landscape in short orders of time, are shaking the stability they're supposed to be building. If SCOTUS wants to rewrite the law of the land, it needs to be gradual not as fast as possible.

When the blind guy does the routing on the PCB.

you could never have a place that full of screens without ads being everywhere

I audibly laughed.

Refusing a subpoena by Congress isn't what Bannon is hoping for. If you believe that Congress is investigating is outside their scope, it's too political to be a lawful investigation, you still have to answer the subpoena and then testify under oath your belief as such. This was something pointed out in Watkins.

So the only way SCOTUS can overturn the conviction is finding some new ability to ignore a subpoena, which I'm not sure how they can justify a new power without it also coming off as SCOTUS removing Congressional power, a clear violation of the separation of power.

You can walk into a hearing and literally sit there and not answer. You can indicate that they're full of themselves. Your 5th Amendment right overrides government oversight in personal matters. They were seeking Bannon's involvement in the Jan. 6 attack, he literally could have gotten up there, gave them the middle finger, indicated his fifth amendment right, and sat there with arms crossed the rest of the time. And he totally could have had SCOTUS get him off scotfree with a Watkins argument, the end.

But if you DO NOT even fucking go, well you've just shot yourself in the foot. Because now, SCOTUS has to invent something to save your dumbass, and reasons to invent a new thing that could potentially backfire are based on how much it's worth it to them to do such.

Literally guy could have done all kinds of things to make this easier for him. Just not showing was quite possibly the dumbest way to do it.

Maybe that's faulty, as I haven't tried it myself

Nah perfectly fine take. Each their own I say. I would absolutely say that where it is, not bothering with it is completely fine. You aren't missing all that much really. At the end of the day it might have saved me ten-fifteen minutes here and there. Nothing that's a tectonic shift in productivity.

China is one of the leading producers of solar panels at exceptionally cheap prices. China and the Philippines are currently in a bit of a sour mood with each other. The US could step in with cheap solar panels if they were researching that, but alas, who do you think is going to be providing them with cheap LNG?

So while the story indicates that solar is at it's cheapest it's ever been. Not for the Philippines. The Philippines is a clear cut example of how the United State's continued resistance to a domestic solar panel production industry is literally hurting their long term prospects. There's a lot of nations out there that want panels and right now, China is the only serious game.

Nice.

Ah. No problem. So the notion behind the "big guys are the ones that stand to profit from AI regulation" is that regulation curtails activity in a general sense. However, many of the offices that create regulation defer to industry experts for guidance on regulatory processes, or have former industry experts appointed onto regulatory committees. (good example of the later is Ajit Pai and his removal of net neutrality).

AI regulation at the Federal level has mostly circled "trusted" AI generation, as you mentioned:

But what it is doing is making it infinitely easier to spread enormous amounts of completely unidentifiable misinformation, due to being added with indistinguishable text to speech and video generation

And the talk has been to add checks along the way by the industry itself (much like how the music industry does policing itself or how airline industry has mostly policed itself). So this would leave people like Adobe and Disney to largely dictate what are "trusted" platforms for AI generation. Platforms that they will ensure that via content moderation and software control, that only "trusted" AI makes it out into the wild.

Regulation can then take the shape of social media being required to enforce regulation on AI posts, source distributors like github being required to enforce distribution prohibitions, and so on.

This removes the tools for any AI out of the hands of the public and places them all in the hands of Adobe, Disney, Universal, and so on. And thus, if you wanted to use AI you must use one of their tools, which may in turn have within the TOS that you can not use their product to compete with their product. Basically establishing a monopoly.

This happens a lot in regulatory processes which is why things like the RIAA, the MPAA, Boeing, and so on are so massive and seemingly unbreakable. They aren't enshrined in law, but regulatory processes create a de facto monopoly that becomes difficult to enter because of fear of competition.

The big guys, being the industry leaders, in a regulatory hearing would be the first to get a crack at writing the rules that the regulatory body would debate on. In addition to the expert phase, regulatory process also includes a public comment, this would allow the public to address concerns about the expert submitted recommendation. But as demonstrated back in the public comment of the debate to remove rules regulating ISPs for net neutrality, the FCC decided that the comments were "fake" and only heard a small "selected" percentage of them.

side note: in a regulatory hearing, every public comment accepted must be debated and rationale on the conclusion of the argument submitted to the record. This is why Ajit Pai suspended comments on NN because they didn't want to enter justification that can be brought up in a court case to the record.

The barrier is no longer “you need to be an artist”. It’s “you need to have an internet connection”

And yeah, that might be worth locking AI out of the hands of the public forever. But it doesn't stop the argument of "AI taking jobs". It just means that small startups will never be able to create jobs with AI. So if the debate is "AI shouldn't take our jobs, let's regulate it", that will only make it worse in the end (sort of how AWS has mostly dominated the Internet services and how everyone started noticing that as not being incredibly ideal around 2019-2021 when Twitter started kicking people off their service and people wanting to build the next Twitter were limited to what Amazon would and would not accept).

So that's the argument. And there's pros and cons to each. But we have to be pretty careful about which way to go, because once we go a direction, it's pretty difficult to change directions because corporations are incredibly good at adapting. I distinctly remember streaming services being the "breath of fresh air from cable" all the way up till it wasn't. And now with hard media becoming harder to purchase (it's not impossible mind you) we've sort of entrenched streaming. Case in point, I love Pokémon Concierge, it is not available for purchase as a DVD or whatever (at least not a non-bootleg version), so if I ever want to watch it again I need Netflix.

And do note, I'm not saying we shouldn't have regulation on AI, what I am saying is that there's a lot for consideration with AI regulation. And the public needs to have some unified ideas about it for the regulatory body's public comment section to ensure small businesses that want to use AI can still be allowed. Otherwise the expert phase will dominate and AI will be gone from the public's hands for quite some time. We're just now getting around to reversing the removal of net neutrality that started back in 2017. But companies have used that 2017 to today to form business alliances (Disney + Hulu Verizon deal as an example) that'll be hard to compete with for some time.

Man, the edited video is just extending a few frames and letting it go on longer than the actual video. Yeah, Biden goes to sit down first, and is doing a little squat while the person is welcomed to the stage, but the video on Reddit's Conservative subreddit is just cut right at the point he sits down and the last few frames are extended a bit.

But you know I'm going to give them benefit of the doubt (I know, I'm going to hear it from you all). They saw something on Xitter, ran with it before fact checking, and now they have egg on face. Happens to the best of us sometimes. But in the age of AI, all of us are going to need to be on our toes about things. This is just a simple edit on a video clip, AI going to allow us to straight up do all kinds of crazy shit.

We're all in this together and there's a ton of NOT AMERICANS that want us at each other's throat. We are either going to help each other get through AI or we're all going to be falling for made up shit.