NickLamp

I do... but there are good reasons to not want to. If you read the linked spec you can learn for yourself

https://httpwg.org/http-extensions/draft-ietf-httpbis-safe-m...

The new QUERY method strikes me as a really promising addition. Not being able to send a body with a GET-type request is a gnawing issue I have with HTTP

Because companies tend to interview less during the holiday season which means people laid off will have a harder time finding a job

I would guess that people either don't appreciate or don't recognize the sarcasm. Or recognize it and don't agree that tightening the money supply is unnecessary

The key problem I see with the current semi-permanent student debt payment holiday is that there are no added stipulations for ensuring a finished degree will come close to a net economic benefit. Otherwise, we're executively making a very expensive fiscal policy decision and allowing tertiary education costs to balloon without anchoring those costs to the expected added value to society.

I'd like to sell you a bridge

Lichess is up (and also better)

Children of the faculty

I'm not referencing MITM attacks...

You can visit sites that aren't blacklisted on the company's network which makes it easier to social engineer you. You have less control over what stupid things your employees can do.

You're right, this wouldn't be any more dangerous than being on a coffee shop's wifi but you already don't care about network security if that's how you're working.

To bring up just one thing that doesn't have to do with trustworthiness: If you let an employee onto a 3rd party VPN you open yourself up to a whole new vector of attacks that you can't prevent.

And then there's the problem with allowing unrestricted, unmonitored Internet access with regards to auditing and establishing a timeline of events if you ever need to do so.

I can think of many things one might do on a VPN that an employer might and probably should care about

Towards the end of the article Kissinger states

"Other countries have made AI a major national project. The United States has not yet, as a nation, systematically explored its full scope, studied its implications, or begun the process of ultimate learning. This should be given a high national priority, above all, from the point of view of relating AI to humanistic traditions."

Which seems to me a disappointing end to the article. An appeal for a national effort to manage AI.

"Other countries have major AI projects" but what exactly should the US model itself after?

"The United States has not yet systematically explored it's scope" but US publishes the second most research papers on AI (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/data-bites/which-countr...) which I think in general is a bad metric but if you're looking at the output that a system produces, it's the best metric you're going to get.

Looking at the private sector, the AI makeup of the leading AI/Robotics ETF $BOTZ (https://www.globalxfunds.com/funds/botz/) is comprised of mostly American companies. Similarly, look at the sheer number of ML/AI startups in SV.

So I fail to see where the crisis is. If American universities are among the leaders in AI research and American companies are among the leaders in the AI economy, why is there such a tone of urgency in this article? Kissinger's argument leads me to believe that he's advocating for a blanket "AI" initiative but he doesn't have a clear idea of what he wants this initiative to do. Without a clear direction for how he wants the US to be "relating AI to humanistic traditions", whatever he's proposing here is just the marriage of shallow musings about the consequences of AI and some kind of blind belief in federal government initiative.

He didn't say all developers working on AI are inexperienced in politics. He was simply restating his thesis which was to appeal to those who hadn't considered what he was writing about for a skepticism of the consequences of AI.

That's an incredible amount of trust to have in the state. Have governments shown to be infallible or incapable of abuse of power? You can argue guns aren't essential to protect yourself but I don't think you can argue that protecting yourself isn't an innate human right.

You are correct. He was joking

I don't think I said richest...

Also I don't think it's hard to see how this thought would come about (not saying I'm advocating it). But there are plenty of ideas that would help society in general (lower college tuition) that many Americans are against whether rationally or irrationally.

If you fail to see how the American public would have a negative reaction to some kind of redistribution of wealth I think you should think about the average American's reaction to the idea of a socialist politician.

I don't think richer people would think that the government giving $1000 a month to everyone would see that as benefitting themselves, there's your opposition to increasing BI or having it at all. And I don't disagree with those last two points.

Is everyone currently clamoring to elect politicians that want to increase welfare and other "Great Society" programs?

I'm actually working on a project that does that!

Can someone explain to me why this page uses 2 GB of memory on my machine?