I investigated Musk’s legal brief against OpenAI.
It mentions “nonprofit” 111 times but never explains how the structure would help humanity. Also, a contract was never signed to solidify any agreement as such.
Meanwhile, Musk’s role in the collapse of USAID has already been linked to tens of thousands of preventable deaths. It also includes a motive for why Musk need OpenAI to be a nonprofit.
I find Anthropic's Claude the most gentle, polite, and consistent in tone and delivery. It's slower than ChatGPT but more thorough, to the point of saturated reporting, which I like. Posting a "Responsibility Policy makes me like the product and the company more.
Apple's "Monopoly Sentinels" won't let me open it. To wit, “Pinnacle a Sentinel remake” can’t be opened because Apple cannot check it for malicious software." • This software needs to be updated. Contact the developer for more information."
I had to right-click open twice in a row, back-to-back. I've seen this with other apps downloaded from non-app-store, from time to time. Very non-intuitive but rewards (irrational) persistence. :)
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was charged with 18 Counts of disseminating classified information on July 12, 2007. If Assange had surrendered to US authorities circa 2007 (He wasn't indicted till 2019), he would have been sentenced to no more than 15 years if he was found guilty on all counts and had no parole.
> There was no guarantee further charges would not be brought more serious than those which had already been laid, in particular with regard to the Vault 7 publication of CIA secret technological spying techniques. In this regard, the United States had not provided assurances the death penalty could not be invoked.
> The CIA had made plans to kidnap, drug and even to kill Mr Assange. This had been made plain by the testimony of Protected Witness 2 and confirmed by the extensive Yahoo News publication. Therefore Assange would be delivered to authorities who could not be trusted not to take extrajudicial action against him.
Their economy is still not doing well. The sole reason that the NIKKEI is storming it is that banks only offer negative interest rates on bank deposits. Thus, the NIKKEI is the only real option left.
I thought this issue was settled in the late sixties and seventies. As "hot" as threesomes sound, the result of polyamorous consequences was once considered settled when the early '80s struck. i.e., Drug-resistant STDs and the emergence of HIV. Monogamy can turn into a boring gated garden whereas a threesome is a potential vector threat if not an emotional threat as well.
Arguably hook ups / one night stands drive STDs more and always have.
Anecdotally every poly person I know is (relatively speaking) quite diligent about STDs, getting tested way more than most, informing partners etc etc. Sometimes it seems to me like poly is actually a spreadsheet fetish with relationships on the side.
I think polyamory is more threatening to "traditional" values due to emotional risk / complexity and impact on family structure, parenting etc. One of the gnarlier problems is wealth transmission.
In many countries you are de facto with someone after just 2 or 3 years, this is already crazy, you get in a relationship with someone and a few years later you owe them half your house. Bring poly into the mix and if you a) have assets and b) cohabit then things can get messy real fast.
Very basic stuff like welfare and taxes haven't really caught up with this either yet, practical things like what do you put in the "partner's income" box on many government forms. The bureaucracy is really not set up for this.
Complexity and risk are the real things to watch out for. If everyone involved isn't emotionally stable, it can be a nightmare for other partners and children.
Each person carries some chance of carrying an STI. Some people aren't aware of their status or may deliberately hide it. For those two probabilistic variables alone, while the absolute risk may be small, it's still at least double that of 2-people relationships. If someone is more likely to enter a 3-person relationship after leaving another 3-person relationship, you have added network effects increasing the risk. How could it be true that the risk isn't different? What have I missed?
You're assuming ceteris paribus, but that isn't a given.
People in poly relationships tend to know their status better than monogamous cohorts. Thus, even if one partner has an incurable STI, they're usually aware that they have it, and keep their viral load undetectable (which prevents transmission), so the factors round the risk down to the same very low range, despite more people involved.
Polyamory requires communication and consent, a healthy polycule is no different than a healthy monogamous relationship when it comes to the expectation that your partner(s) will care for their sexual health and make decisions with you in mind. In one way you are correct, more people involved means an increased possibility that someone will be dishonest or take risks that will expose you. However, in the same way that bringing an STD into a monogamous relationship has consequences so would bringing an STD into a polyamorous relationship. You risk damaging your standing in the relationship.
Maybe on a per member basis, or theoretically. The risk in a monogamous relationship is if a member acts outside the relationship. The more people you add to a relationship, the more that risk increases.
Meanwhile, Musk’s role in the collapse of USAID has already been linked to tens of thousands of preventable deaths. It also includes a motive for why Musk need OpenAI to be a nonprofit.
Full breakdown here — no paywall, full bibliography: https://tomdeplume.substack.com/p/the-nonprofit-myth-how-elo...