Let me get this right…
The same people who said that woman’s health should be left to individual states are now saying that AI shouldn’t be left to individual states.
That's because what they actually want is for their policies to be applied everywhere. Sometimes there's a reason they can't just apply the policy everywhere at the highest level. In these cases, what they do is they make sure there's no policy at the highest level, so that as many instances of the lower levels as possible can apply the policies they want.
The reason they said abortion law should be a state issue is they knew they couldn't get a federal abortion ban. By making it a state issue they ensure they get to at least ban abortion in half the country rather than none of the country.
By now they probably can get a federal abortion ban, though, so I expect them to do that sooner or later. Don't expect consistency from their public statements - "abortion should be up to the states" will simply be memory-holed.
That's what you get when you run the government "like a business". Whoever pays, gets to play. The only exception are Christian churches who are also being listened to. Everybody else gets ignored.
Whataboutism like this is a rhetorical tactic to deflect uncomfortable or difficult conversations. I'm not sure I agree with OP about software engineers and business executives being the "worst thing for the planet," but it does feel like there is a growing distrust of both groups. It's something to pay attention to, especially if AI begins to really take away people's jobs or cause social upheaval. There is already a lot of anger directed at some business executives right now.
It's not whataboutism. GGP said software engineers were worse than career politicians - without using the word "career politicians". GGP also said software engineers were worse than underwater basket weavers. And orb spiders. GP disagrees on one of these.
2025 has shown that there are things much worse than people whose entire career is decided to public service. I'll take 1000 career politician over one "business guy" any day.
The combination of being sure they know how the world works (like a business of course), surrounding themselves with sycophants, and being smart enough to convince themselves of anything which makes them get high off the smell of their own farts, leads to terrible garbage like our current administration.
The Commerce Clause has been abused to control plenty of things that the states should have power over. Wickard v Filburn was one of the worst judicial decisions ever made.
Can you help me understand? If state A decides to ban tobacco product B in their state, would that also fall under this clause, and therefore be subject to federal law on the matter?
For context, the first law to be struck down for overreaching the commerce clause since the 40s was one that prohibited the possession of a firearm within a school zone. All that was necessary to amend the law was to add a rider that it was only illegal if the gun had been bought/sold across state or international lines at some point.
The commerce clause is interpreted extremely broadly. It's basically unfixable though, because so many decades of laws rely on it, and passing a constitutional amendment to just directly grant the federal government a bunch of powers, even ones it already has, is politically impossible. (indeed passing any non-trivial amendment at all is very unlikely for the foreseeable future)
Yes, and you can bet that the current admin is likely to use that to overturn things like California's ban on flavored tobacco products and similar things.
The previous Trump administration sued California for having the audacity to create its own environmental regulations, specifically vehicle smog standards. Not sure how this all ended, but yeah, states rights, except when we don't like what other states are doing.
Can you imagine if we actually had smart people thinking about these issues? I want to read James Madison's essay about how best to preserve individual state autonomy while avoiding the problem of large states being able to effectively write laws across their borders because of the reality of economics and national manufacturing. There's so much nuance of when each side oversteps and since everything is interstate commerce where the federal government should nonetheless be restrained.
It used to be I could read supreme court opinions for this kind of sincere analysis but it seems like the time for discussions like this time is gone.
It feels like these types of fundamental dynamics are the real underlying playing field here, and it needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Everyone keeps wondering what the Republicans' plan is for midterms, or in four years, for the obvious backlash when Trump's severe damage to our country becomes undeniable. As if we're merely going to have a "blue wave" that restores sanity [0], overcoming straightforward tactics like voter repression.
I think the actual goal is to destroy and sell off as much as possible of the government before then, turning what remains of democratic accountability into a noop - converting much of our society into foreign-owned "private property", making what core government functions remain effectively just hooks into unaccountable corporate services, and effectively cementing the corporate-authoritarian dystopia that we all thought we might have a chance of avoiding. We've been suffering the ratchet dynamic nibbling away at individual liberty for decades (alternating back and forth between corporate and government pushes), but I think "AI", cryptocurrencies, and filter bubbles have finally given these looters the gall to try kicking over the whole apple cart to divide amongst themselves.
[0] putting aside the whole Democrats talk a good game about chasing the corporate Road Runner but somehow never quite get him dynamic
It looks like they will be successful. Democrats in Congress are a bunch of losers who aren't able to deal with this. I am not even sure if they want to.
The source of this article is a seriously anti-tech luddite.
"Silicon Valley" isn't aligned with the GOP on any issue but these guys just love it when a few VCs brains break because it gives them a chance to lump every engineer in with the maga chuds.
The thing is the people backing this proposed rule are not exactly marginal players in SV. You can argue that most software engineers don’t agree with it, but you have to accept that who calls the shots in a big business venture is the leadership, not the software engineers.
Let me get this right… The same people who said that woman’s health should be left to individual states are now saying that AI shouldn’t be left to individual states.
Weird priorities.
That's because what they actually want is for their policies to be applied everywhere. Sometimes there's a reason they can't just apply the policy everywhere at the highest level. In these cases, what they do is they make sure there's no policy at the highest level, so that as many instances of the lower levels as possible can apply the policies they want.
The reason they said abortion law should be a state issue is they knew they couldn't get a federal abortion ban. By making it a state issue they ensure they get to at least ban abortion in half the country rather than none of the country.
By now they probably can get a federal abortion ban, though, so I expect them to do that sooner or later. Don't expect consistency from their public statements - "abortion should be up to the states" will simply be memory-holed.
It’s because they are evil and almost everything they say is a lie. Then it makes sense.
Is it your opinion that states should be allowed to regulate AI, but should not be allowed to regulate health?
I agree the GOP is being hypocritical. But I think a lot of other people are hypocritical in the opposite direction.
That's not at all what they're saying. By the GOPs logic there shouldn't be an either or decision here.
Follow the money. Once you realize nothing makes sense, everything suddenly makes sense.
Paraphrasing - Their one principle is that laws should protect them and bind everyone else, and not bind them, and not protect anyone else.
Everyone else is excuses as paper thin as a kid trying to get a cookie
>woman’s health
Odd way of phrasing it.
Accurate way of phrasing it. Even Dobbs vs JWHO accepted that this is the point.
Grammatically incorrect way of phrasing it, though I'm not sure if that's the problem the person you are responding to was raising.
"that woman's health" (which woman are we talking about?) is quite different from "that women's health".
That's what you get when you run the government "like a business". Whoever pays, gets to play. The only exception are Christian churches who are also being listened to. Everybody else gets ignored.
Starting to think software engineers and business executives are just about the worst thing to happen to this planet in a long time!
How could you forget about career politicians?
Whataboutism like this is a rhetorical tactic to deflect uncomfortable or difficult conversations. I'm not sure I agree with OP about software engineers and business executives being the "worst thing for the planet," but it does feel like there is a growing distrust of both groups. It's something to pay attention to, especially if AI begins to really take away people's jobs or cause social upheaval. There is already a lot of anger directed at some business executives right now.
It's not whataboutism. GGP said software engineers were worse than career politicians - without using the word "career politicians". GGP also said software engineers were worse than underwater basket weavers. And orb spiders. GP disagrees on one of these.
2025 has shown that there are things much worse than people whose entire career is decided to public service. I'll take 1000 career politician over one "business guy" any day.
The combination of being sure they know how the world works (like a business of course), surrounding themselves with sycophants, and being smart enough to convince themselves of anything which makes them get high off the smell of their own farts, leads to terrible garbage like our current administration.
ai doesnt have to, and is trying to avoid carbon emissions.
the oil companies are still doing the worst, along with the oil burners like car and plane operators.
ai on nuclear or solar isnt doing much bad for the planet
We getting ai on coal though.
We're getting AI on whatever form of energy is cheapest at the largest scales.
Doesn't matter to this administration, only coal and oil.
Does the federal government have the authority to enforce this?
Yes. This falls within the Constitution's interstate commerce clause.
The Commerce Clause has been abused to control plenty of things that the states should have power over. Wickard v Filburn was one of the worst judicial decisions ever made.
Can you help me understand? If state A decides to ban tobacco product B in their state, would that also fall under this clause, and therefore be subject to federal law on the matter?
For context, the first law to be struck down for overreaching the commerce clause since the 40s was one that prohibited the possession of a firearm within a school zone. All that was necessary to amend the law was to add a rider that it was only illegal if the gun had been bought/sold across state or international lines at some point.
The commerce clause is interpreted extremely broadly. It's basically unfixable though, because so many decades of laws rely on it, and passing a constitutional amendment to just directly grant the federal government a bunch of powers, even ones it already has, is politically impossible. (indeed passing any non-trivial amendment at all is very unlikely for the foreseeable future)
Yes, and you can bet that the current admin is likely to use that to overturn things like California's ban on flavored tobacco products and similar things.
The previous Trump administration sued California for having the audacity to create its own environmental regulations, specifically vehicle smog standards. Not sure how this all ended, but yeah, states rights, except when we don't like what other states are doing.
Can you imagine if we actually had smart people thinking about these issues? I want to read James Madison's essay about how best to preserve individual state autonomy while avoiding the problem of large states being able to effectively write laws across their borders because of the reality of economics and national manufacturing. There's so much nuance of when each side oversteps and since everything is interstate commerce where the federal government should nonetheless be restrained.
It used to be I could read supreme court opinions for this kind of sincere analysis but it seems like the time for discussions like this time is gone.
It feels like these types of fundamental dynamics are the real underlying playing field here, and it needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Everyone keeps wondering what the Republicans' plan is for midterms, or in four years, for the obvious backlash when Trump's severe damage to our country becomes undeniable. As if we're merely going to have a "blue wave" that restores sanity [0], overcoming straightforward tactics like voter repression.
I think the actual goal is to destroy and sell off as much as possible of the government before then, turning what remains of democratic accountability into a noop - converting much of our society into foreign-owned "private property", making what core government functions remain effectively just hooks into unaccountable corporate services, and effectively cementing the corporate-authoritarian dystopia that we all thought we might have a chance of avoiding. We've been suffering the ratchet dynamic nibbling away at individual liberty for decades (alternating back and forth between corporate and government pushes), but I think "AI", cryptocurrencies, and filter bubbles have finally given these looters the gall to try kicking over the whole apple cart to divide amongst themselves.
[0] putting aside the whole Democrats talk a good game about chasing the corporate Road Runner but somehow never quite get him dynamic
It looks like they will be successful. Democrats in Congress are a bunch of losers who aren't able to deal with this. I am not even sure if they want to.
They don't want to, and that's been clear for at least a decade.
They wore pink that one time, so there is that
Hey Hiro...you want to try some Snow Crash?
The source of this article is a seriously anti-tech luddite.
"Silicon Valley" isn't aligned with the GOP on any issue but these guys just love it when a few VCs brains break because it gives them a chance to lump every engineer in with the maga chuds.
The thing is the people backing this proposed rule are not exactly marginal players in SV. You can argue that most software engineers don’t agree with it, but you have to accept that who calls the shots in a big business venture is the leadership, not the software engineers.