LengAwaits

Plenty of the east coast is high CoL. Not as much as in the west, but plenty.

I tend to think that information should be free, generally, so I would probably be fine with "OpenAI the non-profit" taking copyrighted data under fair-use, but I don't extend that thinking to "OpenAI the for-profit company".

Any word on Beepy V2? Migicovsky's been pretty quiet on that lately.

It's tough. Colbert is actually a great example in this case, because, while I also loved his schtick, a lot of conservatives didn't realize it was satire. There was actually a study done about it, in fact!

The Irony of Satire: Political Ideology and the Motivation to See What You Want to See in The Colbert Report

You may be right, there. I do tend to excuse comedians, like Monty Python and their ilk, though. I guess it's always contextual.

Exactly.

“Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they're in good company.” - Jason Garrett-Glaser

Woah. A gif from "The Great Outdoors". Now there's something you don't see everyday!

I guess that primarily depends on whether or not you understand the definition of coercion.

What do we call it when companies coerce government into enacting policy that's detrimental to the general welfare of the country?

Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

• Sir Karl Raimund Popper, speaking on The Paradox Of Tolerance.

Yeah, sorry about the formatting, I didn't feel like dealing with it when I transferred the data over from ChatGPT.

Bribery, when done intelligently, can be extremely difficult to prove in court.

Many of the accused (on both sides of the transaction) have power, connections, and reputations to uphold. I don't think it's too conspiratorial to suggest that the US legal system delivers judgements, let's say, "inconsistently", based on factors such as the aforementioned.

Same as it ever was.

Agreed. That's why I said this in my post:

with ChatGPT in particular you need to be careful to verify the info, of course.