FaceDeer

I’m not arguing it. The courts are arguing it.

We’re not actually disagreeing, because I’m not actually arguing a position here. I’m not saying what anything should be.

I’m not “blaming” anyone. I’m describing what’s happening. The reason why it’s happening is irrelevant.

And yet the courts keep overturning these rules. That’s what I’m saying is happening, and that’s what’s happening. What’s “from ignorance” about this?

In some manner or another, that’s what’s happening. If that’s not what’s supposed to be happening then the system that’s allowing that to keep happening needs to be fixed. Either by changing the system or by changing how the system is supposed to work to match what’s actually happening.

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here. I’m saying “the way the US government works doesn’t match what the US constitutions says” and I’m getting angry responses saying “no, it’s not working that way!” Yes, that’s what I said.

All of this net neutrality back-and-forth would go away if Congress would simply pass a clear, unambiguous law saying “yes there should be net neutrality.” Is that what’s wanted? If so then do that.

We’re saying the same thing. The government is not operating according to how the constitution says it’s supposed to be working.

I need to know which side they’re being politically charged towards before I know whether I should be angry or happy. Are they being taught about immigration being bad and religion good? Or the other way around? How about environmentalism and trans rights?

So you’re saying that it’s the courts that are behaving incorrectly according to their role in the constitution? If so, that doesn’t change the underlying point I’m making here.

“.glb file specification” gets that as its first hit on Google, too. OP was just being incredibly lazy and ironically was expecting the search engine to figure out what she wanted without telling it explicitly.

Over an hour into the video. Not going to be seen by anyone who doesn’t already buy in to the headline.

Ironically, I just asked an AI to tell me what the video’s justification for the title was.

The speaker clarifies that they are using the terms “parasite” and “cancer” in a precise way to describe generative AI. ● Generative AI is parasitic because it relies on human communication and creativity for training data but simultaneously erodes and destroys those very things. The speaker compares it to a parasite that drains resources from its host without offering any benefits in return. ● Generative AI is cancerous because it spreads rapidly, replacing authentic human content with AI-generated content, and dealing with it will likely be difficult and have unintended consequences. The speaker acknowledges that addressing this problem, much like chemotherapy for cancer, might inadvertently harm “healthy cells” as well.

The speaker chose this title to emphasize their serious concerns about the negative impact of generative AI on human creativity, communication, and the internet. They believe generative AI is harmful because it deceives users by presenting AI-generated content as human-created. The speaker clarifies their word choice to preempt potential criticism and ensure their message is understood.

I just wish they were interesting NPCs.

The paradigm that you’re asking for is not a sustainable way to run a country of 300 million plus people.

Again, I am not asking for this paradigm. I’m describing what the paradigm currently is.

Congress has the power to delegate specific policy decisions to said agencies.

Evidently not. Saying “but they should have that power” isn’t going to get net neutrality actually implemented. Because they don’t, as evidenced by the fact that they got shut down when they tried.

Thanks, it was very useful to know that.

It would appear that it was by a law that didn’t give it the authority to implement net neutrality rules.

Again, I am a supporter of net neutrality. I think it’s a good thing. Which is why it behooves Congress to actually implement it. Do it right and then the court won’t keep overturning it like this.

Congress. They need to take responsibility and pass an actual law, not let regulatory agencies invent them on their own.

I am a supporter of net neutrality but I can also see a point to this ruling.

I’m not making any statements here about what’s “right” or “good”, I’m just saying what is. The US government is operating in ways not intended by the constitution. At least not clearly intended. If you want to interpret that as me taking a position then it would be that they should fix their constitution. Until they do that then their government will be unstable and unpredictable.

So they are well within their rights to pass a law setting up the FCC to promulgate regulations based on the Telecommunications Act.

The Supreme Court apparently disagreed, both in this specific case and more generally when the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference doctrine. The Supreme Court basically said “if an agency is going to make a regulation it needs to be very specifically based on a law that says they can do that.” So they’re saying that Congress is going to have to pass some actual laws about net neutrality before the FCC can make regulations enforcing it. The fact that agencies have been making those regulations without laws backing them up is the problem here.

Iraq and Afghanistan were the result of Congressional votes in favor of an AUMF, as outlined in the War Powers Act.

That happened, sure. I’m saying it shouldn’t have. The US went to war without a declaration of war, which is something that should be made by Congress. By passing generic “the President can bomb whatever he wants to” legislation Congress is shirking a responsibility that’s supposed to be theirs.

If you want to have a government where the President is in charge of deciding when to go to war, go ahead and have one. By setting up a constitution that says that’s how it’s supposed to work. Don’t have a constitution that says “here’s how war is supposed to be declared” and then just go do something else instead of that.

Yes, and? Terrorism requires a particular intent. This could just have been a result of mental illness, or some other such motivation.

I’m not saying it is or isn’t. Just that it’s reasonable for it to be investigated as such.

I can see it being difficult to keep up with the law-writing given how much more complicated the world is now than when Congress was first established. To keep things working properly there should really be a whole lot more congressmen, Congress hasn’t been expanded in a long time and representation is starting to get pretty wonky as a result.

When you get right down to it, I think the root of the problem is just that the American system of governance is just too old. It was one of the first big democracies so it was built without any prior experience of what worked well and what didn’t, and the patches it’s had since it was established have been too minor and are too difficult to apply for it to keep up with things. But a large swath of the American public have been indoctrinated that American democracy is the “greatest in the world” and that the US constitution is a sacred document, so major changes are nigh on impossible even if American politics wasn’t in such a dysfunctionally divided state.

All in all, I’m glad not to be in their shoes right now. Though my own country (Canada) is having some political problems of its own these days they feel more resolvable than all this.

The problem is that it isn’t a law, it’s a regulation.

On the one hand, the Republicans are definitely playing politics by attacking the ability of agencies to come up with regulations. But on the other, it really is just another example of how various parts of the US government have been ceding or delegating their responsibilities around willy-nilly in ways that weren’t constitutionally intended. Congress hasn’t made a declaration of war since 1942, despite all the wars the US has entered into since then. The Supreme Court was never even intended to decide the constitutionality of laws, that’s something they declared for themselves and everyone’s just gone along with it since then. The debt ceiling limit is just plain incoherent, Congress allocates money so a budget they pass should automatically override previous legislation (like the debt ceiling limit).

I don’t know what the US should do to resolve all this, but it’s getting to be quite the mess.

The amount of wild speculation and misleading headlines about this is getting quite nuts.

You used the wrong word for “two early!” Worse than Nazi!