The data center hosting this website is already built, unlike the ones people are fighting against.
I'll grant the general public may not understand enough that they already rely on "datacenters", but there are reasonable arguments against gigawatt buildouts for AI, while still using technologies that run in datacenters in general.
The lockin is that you buy a new computer, and when you turn it on Windows is there. Like 1% of people have any concept that they could change that or how they would go about it. It doesn't suck enough yet for them to try changing it.
If you want to talk about why not macOS or Chrome, there are different reasons, but of the people buying PCs, that's why they're on Windows.
Why is he lenient to her at all? It's either guilt or corruption, or at the very least out of character, given his many tirades against rapists.
Trump reportedly called the police in 2006, after their investigation became public, saying "everyone has known he's been doing this." Why didn't he call sooner then? And if he was working with the police, why did he say in 2019 he had no idea of the crimes? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/10/trump-epstei... That article also quotes the DOJ: "We are not aware of any corroborating evidence that the president contacted law enforcement 20 years ago." So the claim is just something in the files, right alongside the worst imaginable allegations against Trump. Do you believe those too?
I believe Biden had legal and procedural reasons not to release them (ongoing cases and keeping DOJ independent), but even without those, the argument cuts both ways: Trump could have released them in 2017. He could have released them before 99.8% of Congress voted to force it. If Biden or Obama were covering for Dems or something, why wasn't Trump glad to release the files as soon as possible? Even if you say "both sides are bad" on this issue, that would be a reason people are disenchanted and want to leave the country.
I'll admit after googling Rosie, it's murkier than I thought. I don't really care to sift gossip rags and try to predict what she'll do, though I'd lean toward you're wrong if you mean she will never set foot in Ireland again nor live there for any significant time. But what is your argument really? Famous liberals who say they are leaving don't actually leave for long, because USA is actually great because of conservative policies? Maybe for most of them, but I feel like them leaving for any significant fraction of the year kind of undercuts your "nobody sneaked into East Berlin" idea though. I don't think many people would performatively leave if there was literally nothing better about their destination. They leave because the value has diminished, and maybe they come back because it's not zero.
He was awaiting trial, so death by his choice wasn't necessarily the justice he deserved.
His co-conspirator is in a cushy prison as a favor from the administration. Trump promised to release files but has been avoiding it in every possible legal way. It appears there are still things missing. What do you call that other than protection? I might buy that there is not great evidence for any more prosecutions, but they are at least reputationally protected as much as possible.
> Rosie O'Donnell didn't stay in Ireland very long.
She has only visited the US, which is congruent with this thread saying it's a less desirable place to live.
> Wikipedia: The majority of the documents were created between 1999 and 2003, after which the AMAD Project was halted and Iran's nuclear weapons research program was cancelled
> the documents contained no revelations about recent nuclear activity
Granted, additional background on the past affects trust levels in the present, but to be clear, AFAICT it was not showing violations of JCPOA. Maybe there is something worse that's classified.
Everything foretold? Iran is the most dominant in the region, they kicked US out, they possess nukes (or conventional) that can reach the US, and the cost of US stopping them is prohibitive? Wow, Trump had better surrender today then.
I don't think it's fair to say he predicted all of its consequences when he also hoped the next president/congress would cancel it, and they did. Did he foresee that it would only last 3 out of the 10-15 years it was supposed to run, but that would be enough to doom us? Or would it have worked out better if it lasted?
Maybe you are right that the sanctions lift built them into a threat, but it still feels stupid there was an agreement in effect, Trump destroyed it, and 10 years later the best we can hope for is they agree again to give up their biggest lever and with sanctions this time. I don't think that will go well.
Arguably it's a weakness of the US system, or the particular laws in this case, that, whichever of JCPOA or sanctions was best, either can be undone at the next election. Rubio implied that's a strength though.
It is prescient that he predicted a lunatic would possess nuclear weapons and act according to apocalyptic religious beliefs, he just didn't say he would be working for the lunatic.
Weird response that does some dodging of its own. Anyone defending JCPOA is obviously in favor of controlling nukes, so why don't you explain more than restating what we already agree with?
You're going to have to specifically address why ending the program with no replacement was better than letting it continue. Your other comments about cost, lack of conventional weapon limits, and perverse incentives for other countries doesn't do much for me. (For one thing, other countries aren't very relevant to this discussion, unless the cost of paying them off were to actually become prohibitive.) It was something, it had some positive effect on the "Iran can't have nukes" you keep harping on, and it was replaced with nothing but sanctions. Why wouldn't they resume development?
I don't think it's that simple. If it was, why hasn't the administration managed to focus on that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_2026_Iran_wa...
And your own comments say they also have a large arsenal of conventional weapons, so presumably they would be a threat without nukes. And the US already claimed to have fixed the nuclear problem last year.
And they torched JCPOA – even with your arguments it was weak, it appears to have been more effective than doing nothing for years and then spending billions to stop them when they, completely foreseeably, stop following an agreement that the US broke first. https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Ira...
I'm rambling and don't know all that much, so to the point of your question: the conflict started because Trump and his people wanted to, and it feels sort of pointlessly speculative and hopeful to ascribe your own interpretations beyond that.
I guess we'll see, if it really ends, and what the new regime, sanctions, nuclear enforcement, etc look like. If there are any career bureaucrats left, maybe they'll pull off something good.
I don't think iOS has it from the app switcher, but pretty easy to take a screenshot and immediately select from it. (Or selecting from older screenshots or photos you open.)
The Loureiro case doesn't explain things much better than a conspiracy theory does. At least, after a few minutes of research, I'm still wondering if someone could have manipulated the suspect into finally acting on a decades-long beef that does not appear to have been escalating steadily. Perhaps the hard part is why he shot the other people, but an angry suicidal person could do that, whether they were acting alone or triggered by someone else.
You can probably do it with a keyboard paired to a server/RPi that emits the keystrokes to the Roku ECP API, if having that second device is acceptable.
The original point was only that a Silicon Valley "golden age" can coexist with immigration. Admittedly it could be a better argument if it holistically made a recommendation, but at least as a starting point it tries to refute that idea.
I don't have a particular love for any of them, but the point was they generated billions in value for the valley in what some consider a golden age.
Google at least, I think people would say there was a period of near-universally believing it was a good thing, and an immigrant was a co-founder.
It definitely shaped our society. And if you think it's for the worse, might that suggest college-educated Anglo-adapting immigrants are more dangerous to us than the ones right-wingers are telling us to focus on?
For the record, Sergey Brin, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Patrick and John Collison, and Jerry Yang are foreign-born. Probably more would not have been here if their parents had not been allowed to immigrate. Now that you mention it, I would trade a few of them away, but I doubt the market would like to erase their work.
> What about before AI all the machine translated projects that people used for years without a single complaint?
If by machine translation you mean something like transpiling, that's a technology that has been proven over decades, and the translators were written by hand with some attempt at formal correctness and guarantees. Translating with LLM is much newer and subject to the errors LLMs can create, such as hallucination. And I think a lot of people would still be nervous about translating an entire project of that many lines, even with the best pre-AI translators.
How many hamburgers will it be if all the proposed/pending datacenters are completed and running?