western banking system
Are you implying the rest of the world uses a different, more socially friendly banking system? For that matter, when’s the last time China sent out a multi-billion dollar aid package?
1% is hardly worth calling sinister.
Yeah, it’s only a few billion dollars. What’s that between buddies?
semantic difference in my word choice is hardly significant enough to be worth quoting lol
It’s only significant when it’s in your favour, eh?
Additional sentencing was added
How is that additional sentencing? In essence, they proved themselves to be unfit parents (because, you know, the whole grooming for crime thing), and had their kids removed due to that. It’s like if you lost your job because you were convicted of a crime. That’s not additional sentencing, that’s just a consequence of your actions
Trusting the government to do the right thing is a poor idea. Politicians will only do the “right” thing if it helps them out.
Without any information, this is just idle conspiracy theorising. It’s not even about politicians, since from the sound of it this came from regular govt officials, not elected politicians.
They’re not just writing the software, they’re responsible for the infrastructure it’s running on. And keeping that running and secure IS a full time job.
Right now, you sound exactly like one of those C level execs who looks at IT and asks “We haven’t had an issue in years, what do we need to pay them for?”
I’m all for supporting women. Give them a chance to speak out, make sure they are fairly listened to and taken seriously. You’ve gone a step beyond that, you’ve already decided guilt and innocence and proclaimed it. More, you’re doing so from a position of influence (yes, as a moderator of a large community, that’s what you are). This is the sort of thing that libel charges get filed for (ok, not gonna happen at our current size, but you may want to start keeping that in mind.)
Why would you default to that?
Because that’s the basis of our legal bloody system! There’s a thousand law professors out there who can explain it better and more eloquently than I could in a thousand years, but that’s the gist of it.
You do not need a conviction to make up your mind.
That’s correct. We do, however, need a conviction before stating it as fact instead of opinion.
Not only are you siding with the party with no evidence
I beg to differ. I have not sided with any party. What is it about people today that they seem unable to grasp the concept of neutrality?
Oh no! We’re comparing credit card interest rates with country-level loans! And they’re higher! Gosh! Never mind that the IMF interest rate is half of that. 🙄
the logical conclusion is foul play
Nobody but you claimed foul play, only bad intentions.
Fair enough! That’s exciting news
The warnings are self-serving, not the AI
Due process means the law was fairly applied and their rights were respected. I agree and understand that a govt program does not mean this is the case. In the absence of any countervailing evidence however, that would be the default assumption.
The interviews published were hand selected, the articles are very biased. I’ll sumerize a different way, only 3 of the 100 kids taken from their parents did not speak poorly about their experience.
I agree with you there. The kids are not under a gag order though. Is there any other article or source that indicates a different situation from the one described here?
No, you’re the one who started with the assumptions. The correct behaviour is to make no assumptions and wait for the legal system to sort things out.
Jeez, I can’t believe I’m having to explain this to a mod on one of the biggest communities on lemmy.
So what you’re saying is, all I need to do to get one of my exes jailed is get to know another disgruntled ex of theirs? Awesome!
There was no due process to kidnap the kids. Part of the parents sentence was not loss of custody.
Source? It’s an official govt program being run by a judge. Not even those opposing the program are claiming it’s against the law, they’re just saying it’s a bad idea.
If you look at history the state has been a much more terrible guardian.
Worse than grooming the kids to be crime lords? It’s a closely scrutinised program, and nobody’s calling shenanigans on the implementation, not even the kids being interviewed. It might not work out, that’s true, but I am not seeing a reason that it would be a definite failure.
If it helps, I agreed with your 1st 2 points. You may die with your dignity half intact.
“Sam Altman or Elon Musk about the “existential risk” artificial general intelligence poses to humanity”
The full quote is “UNLIKE self-serving warnings from Sam Altman or Elon Musk about the “existential risk” artificial general intelligence poses to humanity”. In other words, they’re actively denigrating Musk and Altman, and you’ve taken the quote entirely out of context, in direct opposite to the original meaning.
? It’s not open source, AFAIK.
No no, I mean, I get your point about how most corps do try to keep up with regulations. But some bad apples certainly spoil the batch. Even within corps I’m sure there are differences from one dept to another.
It astounding that you can’t think of why government kidnapping is a bad thing. They have no right to take kids from homes because they want to “tame the savages”.
Did you miss my big, big disclaimer? “excepting the potential for abuse of this precedent”.
In the case under discussion, the parents are convicted major criminals, there’s a big difference from targeting a certain race. I do agree it’s a potential slippery slope.
It’s not morality to teach kids about all the options they can choose to earn a living.
You can teach the kids their options, but the home environment obviously exerts a greater influence, especially if they are brought up to glorify it.
I have a serious, non-rhetorical question that I’m honestly interested in an answer to. Given that the parents and family have proven themselves to be bad influences and unfit guardians, why would we WANT to continue exposing the kids to their influence? This question is specific to this situation, not about the potential for abuse of the law in other situations.
Another option is to imprison mafia members, it’s much more difficult to influence children from prison.
The mafia have been managing it for generations, so that option obviously doesn’t work.
Education is probably the best, showing kids they have better options will do wonders.
We’ve had this discussion many times, though from the opposite side. School and education is for teaching kids facts and about the world, but they do not (nor should they) have the capacity to be substitute parents. And that’s for neglectful parents, much less parents who are actively teaching the kids negative values.
All in all, excepting the potential for abuse of this precedent, I’m not sure why this is such a bad thing. The parents and family have proven themselves to be bad influences and unfit guardians, why would we WANT to continue exposing the kids to their influence?
Cue the tankies to show up soon explaining how China had everybody’s best interests at heart, and all previous examples were taken out of context.
The obvious difference I’m seeing (at least based on the article) is that the US and Canadian systems were woefully underfunded and overwhelmed. Whereas this program has a small number of participants and seems fairly well supported. Time will tell I suppose.
I’m all for supporting women. Give them a chance to speak out, make sure they are fairly listened to and taken seriously. You’ve gone a step beyond that, you’ve already decided guilt and innocence and proclaimed it. More, you’re doing so from a position of influence (yes, as a moderator of a large community, that’s what you are). This is the sort of thing that libel charges get filed for (ok, not gonna happen at our current size, but you may want to start keeping that in mind.)
Because that’s the basis of our legal bloody system! Innocent until proven guilty! There’s a thousand law professors out there who can explain it better and more eloquently than I could in a thousand years, but that’s the gist of it.
That’s correct. We do, however, need a conviction before stating it as fact instead of opinion.
I beg to differ. I have not sided with any party. What is it about people today that they seem unable to grasp the concept of neutrality?