It looks like the administration is filled with people more interested in making a buck for themselves, rather than do what is best for the country.

Everyone knows that getting another trump may not be possible for at-least another 10 or so years (I don't mean the dems will win, just that republicans may put forth a saner version of trump just to save the party)

That's the Hallmark of a fascist leader.

I hate to bring up Hitler but that's how he gained much of his power. He was a "useful idiot". The people that helped him were looking out for themselves. They thought they could use Hitler to grab power/wealth.

It can be more sinister.

If judiciary blocks X, then trump will say "these are the real bad guys, they are as worse as the dems, lets remove them". And BAM ! You have a dictator.

The sad part is that one of the most powerful nation in the world is filled with idiots who will lap up the above argument.

I would say that all this current situation is because of corporate greed, leading to a skewed distribution of wealth, leading to the evolution of a class of voters who are desperate, gullible and mis-informed.

> lets remove them

How?

I guess development is driven by military and commercial needs, rather than altruistic needs.

The futuristic ads were made for the consumer to feel safe and sound.

The actual money flowing went into military applications (drones, guidance systems, etc) and commercial applications (car factories)

For the above systems, they don't have to be physically capable, just have a restricted set of actions / outcomes, for example, flying a missile. But, they need to be mentally strong, to take decisions at split seconds.

I was unaware of Apple’s military drone and missile programs. Could you point me to more information on those? I’m having trouble even imagining what an Apple drone would cost.

_Centralized platforms_ socialising happened around 2004, Facebook being one big survivor of that time. Because then, centralising stuff to provide a massive service proved more efficient (money wise: resources, investment, control, ads).

But socialising on the internet? There were plenty of options before, around and after then. Only, they didn't get the same support, convergence and effort since then. Because most people trusted the centralized services would opt to do the right things eventually. Ha. Fools were we.

You realize people (including me) were socializing on the internet before any of these big companies existed, right?

There was this open protocol (that still exists!) called IRC. Also: Usenet and email.

Facebook has 3 billion users. IRC and Usenet basically round to zero by comparison.

Email is the real answer here, but the reason it is better is the same reason Facebook et al took over.

Most people weren’t, until the big companies came around and commoditized it.

We also still do it!

How can an algorithm be "artificial intelligence algorithm"?

Does it mean AI models are used for data fitting? Or clustering?

For data generated in such low scales, wouldnt statistical methods or procedural methods be sufficient or efficient or both?

As an engineer working in the field who has designed both cloud algorithms and on-firmware algorithms, when marketing uses AI, it tends to just be training/data fitting. At best, the most complicated ones tend to be random forests and if any use neural networks, it’s usually just overkill.

The answer to your last question is yes, especially when it’s from raw signals.

Tbf, there are applications from devices that do use deep learning methods but from experience they are not practical except on very edge cases.

>when marketing uses AI

In my experience when marketing wants to use AI, they will. Regardless of whether it is ML, basic statistics or even just a few if-else blocks.

It used to be the way you describe up to about 2-3 years ago, now the term is meaningless.

In modern common usage both the terms "AI" and "algorithm" are just newspeak for "a computer does something" so combining the two into a single phrase just superlatively multiplies the value, like how using a double negative emphasizes how very much more negative something is. In the middle ages the term might have been "miraculous" and it could also be well served just by sampling Magnus Pike exclaiming "SCIENCE!".

If you hard-code effective learned distributions from a trained model, I suppose that could be described as an 'AI algorithm', even though the final output is a flat algorithm.

Looks like back and front landing gear are not deployed. Highly unlikely for that to happen due to a bird hit.

Agreed. Landing gears can be gravity-operated when hydraulics are out.

Adults can still be on SM and can still criticize the govt.

Also, it must be the state of affairs that an Adult can have an ID on SM and criticize the govt. and the laws and courts should protect that individuals right to criticize.

Avoiding IDs on the internet, just so that the govt can't catch hold of the critic is a lot of step backwards.

The problem with this approach is that you will have two groups of children, the ones who have access and the ones who don't have access.

This is a worse problem than allowing it for all.

Its another vector of temptation, distraction, in-equality, etc.

> in-equality

If your concern is that some parents will be able to afford to give their children their own devices, but not afford any parental-control software with them... Well, that's better-addressed with an explicit "Digital Tools For Needy Parents" program.

If you mean some parents will choose to give their kids more autonomy... Well, isn't it proper for that to be their decision? I have little sympathy for neighbors who use the logic of: "You are banned from giving your child $thing, because I'm tired of hearing my kids whine that they want it too."

I don’t think the concern is economic equity, it’s social harm.

Kids whose parents choose to restrict will suffer social consequences vs parents who don’t.

The whole point of the law is to reduce the social harm caused by social media.

I'd say the next steps is that you also force institutions for kids to ban it, regardless of parent choice.

Parents must present proof of disabling said websites for their children. Or their kids can just not have those devices with them.

Do this for schools, activity clubs, restaurants, fast for food places, etc, and you've basically hit 80% of places where kids are all the time.

But not a worse problem than blocking it for everyone

How can you protect children from the absolute devastating effects of social media on children, by banning it for adults?

Demonizing social media is this generations version of demonizing rock and roll.

It's so tiring.

The harm of social media is closer to alcohol or tobacco. Addiction, even though with milder physical conseques. Nothing to do with demonizing.

Is it? You can see the actual harm caused by web sites.

Doomscrolling in all age groups. Going to bed very late at night.

Girls having body dysmorphia cause of instagram.

Young men having porn addition and having no ambition to interact with real women

None of these sound like they are a very big problem compared to many alternative things people do. People talk about social media as though it's lead paint.

I particularly liked that one Facebook study that is usually taken out of context.

The latter is the scariest but the least binded to a social media (except of underground ones which will never have age verification anyway).

I wish you could see your comment as most people see it.

When you refer to "males" and "females", and especially use terms like "low-quality female" you sound absolutely unhinged.

or realistic maybe? people are too keen to forget that we share 98.8% DNA with chimps...

just because thing A was (unjustly) demonized doesn't mean demonizing thing B is without merit, even more so when thing A and thing B are completely unrelated.

I agree with the OP that the ban is woefully undemocratic, and that banning it for children only is a grave misstep.

I think what they should ban instead is recommendation algorithms. If I subscribe to a source, and explicitly unsubscribe from another, it should be illegal to withhold some of the first’s postings and shove the second’s in my face. This should be a no-brainer and has nothing to do with the age of the user; but it's easier to just ban the people who, as OP correctly noted, have no representation and no recourse.

Does Ukrainian's Revolution of Dignity counts?