Jacob Russell

hell yeah computer show me what players are the biggest pieces of shit

a man wearing sunglasses and a leather jacket is talking about scientists . Alt: Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park saying "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should." Unrelated to the picture, Alan Grant is a more interesting character than Ian Malcolm and I will die on this hill.

Strongly agree.

I do wish that I felt like the tech industry had any level of ethical or moral consideration to what we're creating at this point. Tech was never perfect, but we used to at least try.

Also totally fair. :)

I've now had two very reasonable discussions on divisive topics with people I at least partly disagreed with today and no one has gotten mad, it's a weird day on the internet!

I agree with that, if it's part of the job market it's your responsibility as a professor to teach it. I would imagine you discuss the benefits and problems more than most law professors do as well.

With regards to it's long-term prospects - I think it's more crypto than e-discovery.

Also not intended to undercut your crossover expertise in tech and law.

None of which is intended to be an attack on you personally, so I hope it doesn't come across that way, but this is a thing I find deeply troubling and think will be challenging to unwind when the current bubble bursts.

As someone in tech, with a better than average understanding of the technology in question, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of AI being used by lawyers in any significant way. Sure, you can review the output, but that's much less reliable than a human doing it in the first place.

People are coming to their sites with questions about faith, and confident wrong answers can be disastrous with significant real world impacts.

While law isn't 'the eternal soul,' information being reliable and the ability to say "I don't know" is vital.

There are places I think it's useful, but not in any place where the integrity of the answer is paramount.

For example - I have a client that's a national-level religious organization. They've asked about using AI in various ways and I have strongly recommended against it (advice that was taken).

I'm going to respectfully disagree that it's great. There are areas where it improves productivity (although studies show even this to be arguable) but we're no closer to the solution to 'lying with absolute confidence' than we were.

Looks like she's at about 1.5B net worth and is outside the Forbes 400. You're right that she is, but there's gotta be someone wealthier than she is, right?

My question - does this mean they'll be ineffective, or that they'll just escalate their use of force as a crutch.

It's easier to catch someone after you've shot them.

Happening now: protesters in Chicago are interrupting a hiring fair at the Congress Hotel, where U.S. Customs and Border protection is recruiting today.

Banner reads, "stop kidnapping our neighbors!"

It's quite the scene in here, and the DHS table has been blocked for several minutes already.

ICE is hiring! US immigration and Customs Enforcement is looking for highly motivated, morally indifferent individuals to join our team. Open positions include: Senior Goon Racism Enforcement Office Unmarked Van Driver (Part-Time) Experience with children a plus usajobs.gov

From this month's edition of The Onion.

"the expectation is that AI will soon be central to legal practice"

I'm in no position to argue with you on the legal industry, but from a tech perspective I both don't believe this will be true and hope that it's not.

So here's a question - who's the richest American who has been loudly and continuously anti-MAGA?

Buffett has been mostly pro-Democrat and vaguely anti-Trump, but certainly not loudly. Honestly can't name one.

The student newspaper.
This fell. To the student. Newspaper.

I think the scale is just mostly that HP is way more popular than anything OSC has ever done. She has more exposure than he does, not that he's unknown.

Also, thank you for engaging in reasonable discussion. :) Already had to block someone who decided to drag and subskeet my first post.

Deep Space Nine scene. Weyoun is pictured in a dark cave. Weyoun is an alien with human features aside from long but not wide ears that stretch further down the jawline and look ribbed. He's talking to someone and looks spooked. Closed caption reads, "Of course, I'm paranoid, everyone's trying to kill me."

No, but he's a pretty awful dude in very similar ways to JKR. He's been on an unapologetic anti-gay crusade for years.

He was why I first started trying to work out my feelings on separating art from the artist (or sports from the player) years ago. Still not sure I've figured it out.

I think that's a fair viewpoint, it just strikes me that there's probably a lot of people in that last category who don't get as much heat.

Also the reverse - it didn't seem like the actors in Ender's Game got much heat given that OSC is a well known bigot.

... but there's a bigger disconnect in the discourse around Rowling and HP than I feel like exists elsewhere.

They're definitely different levels of support for a terrible person, but the gap feels unique.

Not really making a point, just something I've been thinking about lately.

I will say, without saying they're equivalent, that the difference in response to 'actor who's in a new HP property' and 'person who has remained a huge HP fan' is something I've been thinking about. They're not equivalent, and as someone who's favorite novel is Ender's Game I totally get it...

That sounds like... a very healthy company?

What if exponential growth forever is not only impossible, but undesirable for actual customers? What if it's fine for a business to scale at a reasonable rate, or even not grow?

Infinite growth forever has destroyed so much of social media.

I felt this way about Wirecutter before the NYT turned it into an advertising pit.

Let me qualify what Josh is saying. It is quite clear that the Constitution requires a census of all persons. It’s quite clear that past Supreme Court cases support this proposition. (For instance, the recent census question case makes no sense if persons doesn’t include immigrants.)
/1

Yep, Greg is the one to talk to on this! He can also identify with being the subject of a lot of very mad people online.

Fighting AIDS was pretty good

An episode on the most ridiculously common cliches in profiles - everyone is an introverted extrovert, far too many people still looking for a partner in crime, duck face in 2025.

There's a women's version that definitely includes guys with their shirt off but I'll need a consultant.