In case there is any doubt that the wrecker's talk of a "bloodbath" if he loses the election was a threat to seize power through violence, there sure plenty of instances of his making such threats and inciting violence.

The wrecker was caught after a speech telling someone he wanted Americans to show him the sort of deference that North Koreans show Dictator Kim. North Koreans have a rational reason to show total obedience to Dictator Kim: he will have them jailed or killed if they don't.

That is indeed what he wants. He recently called for imprisoning Liz Cheney for participating in the congressional investigation of the wrecker's role in the Jan 6 attack on the Capitol.

Americans who don't want to be ruled by a repressive and brutal tyrant must make sure to defeat the wrecker in the election, and be ready to defeat his violent supporters afterward.

In advocating peace and an end to the injustice of the occupation of Palestine, we should welcome support from Israelis that work for these goals.

The doctrinaire hostility towards Israel, described in the article, seems designed to create a mirror image of Netanyahu, and thus make sure the conflict can never be resolved except by total defeat for Israel or Palestine.

*It's time to ask why the US and UK fund Rwanda while atrocities [it supports] mount up in DRC.*

The western sponsors of Rwanda may be racists and they may enjoy seeing black Africans suffer. But I am skeptical that they join such a complex and selective scheme involving dividing groups of blacks against each other. I suspect that money is somehow at the root of that.

California is considering a bill that would require companies to test large "artificial intelligence" models for "unsafe" behavior before "releasing" them, and set up ways to shut them down completely.

The best known large language models do not properly qualify as "intelligence", but I expect that the bill would define the term with the usual misguided usage. In terms of substance, that is the right decision: the bill would be useless for is purpose if it did not cover bullshit generators.

The bill would apply to "released" programs. Bullshit generators are typically not released at all -- you can't get a copy of GPT4, not even an executable copy. They are made available for use only as SaaSS (Service as a Software Substitute):

I expect that the author intends the law to apply to those systems, and it would be ineffective if it did not apply to them. That implies that the bill's sponsor, or perhaps the author of the article, is distorting the word "released" to include unreleased programs.

This will cause further confusion. It is sure3y possible to write the law to have the intended meaning without spreading confusions about the meaning of words.

There is a substantive issue, too. Will this law effectively prohibit the real release of free software to do machine learning? It could do that, depending on the precise wording.

*Climate experts sound alarm over thriving plant life at Greenland ice sheet.*