Yeah I just don't think the average person is going to even get what they are talking about and they may not really care about ads in exchange for free-to-use ChatGPT. Most ChatGPT users are just using it as a search and summary tool. And they were seeing ads before via Google so what difference does it make?
While the Anthropic ads might be a hit amongst nerds, it won't compel normies to use Claude over ChatGPT, and in fact, it may just be damaging to AI adoption overall as it presents bad taste examples of how corruptible it all is.
Yes we can play the semantic game all the way to absurdity, but its also quite true that genetic ancestry is heritable and traceable. We know that many unique native american ancestries have been diluted down to very small percentages over the centuries so its not an unreasonable question.
The idea of pure cultures is even dumber. One is genetically traceable, the other is fluid and depends more on family upbringing and influence from local population interactions and social networks and mass media exposure. Unless Zapotec has remained uniquely isolated from quite strong Spanish/Mexican cultural identity and influence.
But it's also like, we know what we mean, if the Zapotec people/community are fairly insular or at least in marriage/procreation like to be with their own then that's for casual purposes 'mostly pure'.
Otherwise I can't even say I'm 'British', because who knows what mix I am if I go back further than I have record of, which is just silly, we know what we mean.
You're very close to following that line of enquiry to its logical conclusion, which is that our nationalities tell us little of any real value except what our home culture was like where and when we grew up. Personally I've come to regard identifying as any nationality as silly except for legal purposes.
We're humans, and humans have always and always mixed between cultural groups, except in rare instances of total isolation; such people are not 'pure' anything, but they would likely be inbred. There is no 'pure' genetic strain of any race or indeed any organism. Whatever divisions there are between us are extremely blurry and constantly changing.
I don't think it's silly for all purposes, it's silly to be racist about it, to say that 'pure x' is more desirable, or all that's 'allowed' in 'your' country etc., but that doesn't mean there's never any value in communicating 'what our home culture was like where and when we grew up'.
I'm British, my wife isn't, and her parents emigrated from a third country before she was born. Our hypothetical children will not be 'purely' from any one of those cultures (nor would she even say she was 'purely' of her birth country not her parents'), and I think that does convey information.
OK, so if you don't mind, let's take your family as a good example of what I'm saying, and let's further posit a world where Britain completely halts all immigration today, so from some near future point, every child born in Britain is born of British-born parents. Now let's suppose that you have children, and that they remain in Britain, marry locals, and have children of their own, onwards forever, never leaving the country except for holidays.
Since, as you say, your hypothetical children would not be purely British, at what point are your descendents 'pure Brits'? Is it 50 years from now? 100? 500? Now think about what life was like in Britain 50, 100 and 500 years ago. How close would you say the lives of children today are, compared to children in those times? Closer than to children born today in, say, Norway? Consider that 1986 is as far away from today as it was from 1946; someone born today is as distant from someone born in the 80's, as someone born in the 80's was from the end of World War 2.
And think about British culture in the 90's and 00's - it was heavily influenced by US culture at that time; today I imagine things like K-Pop are having an increasing influence. Britain (as indeed most other nations) has for thousands of years been a melting pot of different cultural inputs. In fact, the very notion of 'Britain' has changed over time - the British empire once spanned the globe and included places as diverse as India, South Africa and Singapore. Even the Britain of today is not a single country; would you say that, say, Northern Irish and south-eastern English people are culturally homogeneous?
So, while I do agree that telling me you were born in Britain, or China, or Zimbabwe would help me to calibrate broad expectations about you, I can't see how any of those things is or ever was 'pure' in any way.
The Commander in Chief of the military, also known as the President, has the authority to fire at will, that is how it works in America for 250 years now.
Right, and everyone else has the right to an opinion on it. The point seemingly being made above is Trump's swingeing cuts seem to be driven more by ideology than administrative efficiency. Xi's dismissal of his top general (which seems to be equivalent to sacking the Secretary of Defense or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff) is perplexing due to the opacity, but it doesn't seem to be indicative of any bigger or broader trend.
Reagan didnt push for deindustrialization and "the world is flat" world view didn't take precedence until after the fall of the Soviet Union in the 90s.
At the time, everyone was still optimistic that China would eventually become more open and even democratic, that Russia would not regress, etc.
It was still common for electronics and microprocessors to be made in USA well into the 90s. Reagan had nothing to do with the expansion of WTO and trade deficits with China that ballooned under HW, Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama.
You can't have financialization without deindustrialization and he didn't push in that direction, he shoved. This macroeconomic story is 500 years old. He knew what he was doing.
you give the 'elites' far too much credit. reagan was a tv cowboy that got elected because he was really popular, and cut taxes. Bush 1 was a cowboy and oil man from texas, and clinton was a cowboy from arkansas who made money trading cattle futures and doing land deals in the ozarks. Bush 2 grew up in rural texas and had a GPA of 2.35.
these people were really good at fundraising and getting elected, nobody after kissinger was competent in these ideas (kissingers morality is debatable, but he was very competent)
Agree wholeheartedly with the exception that Bush 1 alone out of all of them may have actually been a successful shadowy lever-pulling elite. Spends his early life running a tiny front company for the CIA then all of a sudden he's the director, and then a top member of the Republican party. All while maintaining this "aw shucks", dorky persona.
I agree in reference to military operations and foreign policy. economically he was pretty bad though and lost on that basis. a bit like a kyle machlachlan american psycho
although, the more damaging strategic trade decisions did come from clinton later i suppose.
yes he did, but that was only diplomatic relations not industrial policy and tariffs. this was also done in the context of dividing the communist spheres.
mainland chinese manufacturing and trade in the 70s and 80s was still mostly garments, appliance assembly and so on. the kind of thing you see in bangladesh today - even vietnam has mostly developed past garment manufacturing.
the world leading electronics manufacturing and precision components only began in china after bill clinton invited china into the wto in 99/2000 and the heavy capital started to flow. even by then, I don't think the USG expected shenzhen to exist
china didn't really move from bicycles to private car ownership until the 00s.
I mean its easy to forget; if you said in 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, maybe even 2005 that china would be the worlds largest producer of cars, electronic cars, smart phones, drones, etc, on track to develop its own EUV lithography, and that many chinese cities would have the highest living standards in the world, you would have sounded ludicrous. intel was king and nokia/blackberry/motorola were the giants in cellular
Clearly very few people were buying at 120 which is why it fell back to 85. It's a highly volatile commodity. Commodities markets go through booms and busts all the time and you never even hear about most of them.
> Do I have to go through the polygraph test to join CSIS?
> Yes. All CSIS employees must obtain a Top Secret security clearance and the polygraph is a mandatory part of the process.
Seems to be the same for CSE and to get "Enhanced Top Secret" clearance.
Back to the US, the Department of Labor says that private employers can't force people to undergo a polygraph test: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/polygraph
But of course this does not apply to public sector jobs, where it's used more pervasively.
If they are so leaky then why were they able to capture Maduro without a single American casualty? On one hand you claim incompetence and yet no one was tipped off. So maybe the Signal group chat wasn't as important as it was made out to be?
Lol. The Maduro operation did leak, but the press held the story. Rubio said “Frankly, a number of media outlets had gotten leaks that this was coming and held it for that very reason, and we thank them for doing that, or lives could have been lost.” https://www.npr.org/2026/01/05/nx-s1-5667060/media-shows-res...
Politicians just use those accusations as cover for conducting fraud or enabling the conditions that they inherently benefit from. There's no reason to not use paper, ID checks, and same-day accounting.
> There's no reason to not use paper, ID checks, and same-day accounting.
Sure there is. ID checks make it impossible for people who don't have government-issued ID to vote, which is a lot of people; and furthermore ID checks don't actually improve election security. Same-day counting is impossible if you are going to count all mail-in votes that were sent before the deadline.
To be clear, I'm not saying that politicians aren't agitating for conditions that benefit them. That's there job. But I also believe in supporting access to voting and fair elections, and at least some of the politicians' arguments help achieve those ends.
Yeah, I forgot voter ID. All democratic countries mandate voter ID except the US and another couple(?). Yeah, as if only the US has the "voter access" problem
There are many reasons not to do those things, "lalala not listening" isn't an excuse.
It's usually very simple, too. For voting ID: ID isn't evenly distributed, and that's not an opinion, that's a fact.
So if you require ID, then obviously you will suppress some demographics more than others. That creates a bias. Again, not opinion.
This can be solved. You will notice none of the people championing voter ID make even a thinly-veiled attempt to solve it. Instead they say stupid things like "oh wow so black people can't get ID now? Uh, buddy, I think YOU'RE the racist one!"
> Nobody is cheering for inflation to get worse, they are celebrating it being held down to 2.7% after higher inflation a few years ago.
Trump is actively fighting the federal reserve to drop the interest rate to 0%. Members of his team regularly do interviews where they say "it's going to get worse before it gets better". Inflation is being held down despite this administration's best efforts.
> The U.S. is a net exporter of oil and food and self-sufficent for majority of its mineral needs as well.
And has been for a while. But the current conservative rhetoric is specifically about bringing manufacturing jobs back.
> There is no need for U.S. to crash its currency to incentivize domestic production, it can just impose tariffs on imports to do so.
I don't think autarky is this administration's only stated goal. They specifically see an export-led economy as being more important or even "legitimate" and are pushing for other countries to import our goods. Devaluing currency is a strong way to incentivize exports and China's currency manipulations were the key to their rise as a manufacturing power.
The reason it was 0 for so many years was because the Fed was trying desperately to create inflation during this time. (Which was chronically low for other reasons).
Lowering interest rates to create inflation is literally one of the core tenants of the Federal Reserve:
The problem with tariffs is really just trumps complete instability. Why would anyone invest in domestic manufactoring when Trump wildly flip flops on all tariff policy using it as a diplomatic punishment and reward system? Especially when his tariffs in general are legally questionable at best and the other half of us politics are against them just in principal. Imagine investing millions in a domestic factory and then trump gets a personalized jet from some random nation so the tariffs you were depending on for your profit margin are gone. Or Trump loses the midterms and now tariffs as a policy are gone. Unless Trump both becomes a dictator and sets the tariffs in stone without changing them too much, or democrats come out in wide support of tariffs themselves, I don't see how you could use them to invest your money.
Also, anything companies build inside the US (factories, supply lines, etc.) just becomes an economic hostage for a Trump to use for further rounds of extortion.
So it's not just that the policies are (A) counterproductive and foolish and (B) changed on a whim and (C) have no long-term foundation and (D) are changed for corrupt reasons... but even after all that, (E) the corrupt person "making deals" is incapable of honoring them.
This is how you grow a sclerotic, internationally-uncompetitive domestic industry. See: shipbuilding.
Where tariffs work is as a nursery policy. Give firms a safe haven to grow in. Then let competition hone them. South Korea has pioneered this playbook; China copied it. We were sort of doing it, but the current administration blew up our nascent new energy industry.
It's also debatable how important tariffs even are for "infant industries". In most situations, if you ever remove the tariffs, the native industry is just as likely if not more likely to die out to any serious foreign competition.
For South Korea and China, tariffs were not a very key part of their industrial policy. Which is not to say that the government didn't have a massive hand in the success of their native industries. Case in point: shipbuilding for South Korea. The government was key in securing the capital investment in the massive drydocks the entire world depends on.
In the late teens, China was dominating all of these industries.
Under policies of the Biden administration, these industries were growing domestically in the US and we were increasing our share of the global market.
Over the last year those domestic industries have been destroyed. They are barely surviving and have stopped rapidly expanding. All gains made against China's dominance in these technologies has been lost, and then some.
Hope and wishing aside, if you think anything Trump is doing is gonna benefit the economy, you really show your ideological side.
For example, businesses are hesitant to invest in domestic manufacture because the tarrifs can be undone by next president. But the reputation that US is building right now cant be undone. Investment in manufacturing takes years, not to mention that its not like America has lots of people wanting to go work in mines and factories. Meawhile as countries with sane leaders adjust, US is gonna be less and less relevant.
So in 5 or so years when your house value and investments are way down and there is a Dem president and you think about complaining about economy is bad under liberals, remeber who cause it all. Most of the current economic problems that existed in late 2020s have origins with Reagan era economics.
While the Anthropic ads might be a hit amongst nerds, it won't compel normies to use Claude over ChatGPT, and in fact, it may just be damaging to AI adoption overall as it presents bad taste examples of how corruptible it all is.
reply