It certainly was intended as such. In a commercial transaction, that's what they're doing. They don't think it's moral to use their product in certain ways. They are thus prohibiting their customer from using it in such ways.
But, as I've said, I tend to agree with both Anthropic and the Administration's positions. What was wrong here is that rather than just terminating the contract, the Administration went nuclear.
It seems value-neutral to me. It's descriptive. Particularly for anyone who understands that different groups of people will legitimately disagree on many moral questions.
> "Impose" makes it sound like Anthropic is being hostile here.
Anthropic is not asking for their product to be used in line with their ethics, they are basically demanding it. I don’t necessarily think they are wrong but I don’t think we need to sugarcoat it either. It’s a demand and if it differs from what the DoW wants to use the tech for…of course its going to be in conflict. “Impose” is appropriate.
So, uh, where precisely are you finding a sufficient # conservative professors to make that kind of statement? I'm curious as to where they're hiding...
There was never any demand by the public for the output of such departments. They have been perceived as existing in their own bubbles. It's got nothing to do with conservative professors. It's just there's really no need for these departments in every university.
As an Army veteran, I find this kind of keyboard warrioring to be insanely cringe.
The “last time” was 20 years after Mexico had secured their independence from Spain and a few years after fending the military was worn down fending off incursions from France. Mexico was barely able to control or defend northern territories from indigenous tribes at the time, never mind a full country’s military.
It was also nearly 180 years ago and has no bearing on modern conflict.
I’m baffled that you can look at the Democrats’ decades of running to the right on immigration and still blame their losses on not doing that enough. This is a perfect example of why ceding any ground to right-wing talking points is a mistake. Obama deported more people than any president before him and it never mattered because reality was never the point.
We have a gestapo kidnapping members of our community in the streets and the xenophobic propaganda still has you believing the most vulnerable and underpaid people in our society were ever a serious problem.
Im baffled that you can look at the polling numbers about the migrant fiascos in dem cities and come to any conclusion other than that it was one of the biggest political fuck ups this century. Republicans played urban dems like a fiddle calling their bluff on sanctuary city talk. The bussing programs made republicans look like problem solvers and dems look like the classic progressive trope of all bark no answers. Dems didnt need to close the borders or even slow down immigration, but they did need a real answer that isnt "this isnt a real problem" and they came up with nothing.
The migrants were a serious problem for democrats and youre still denying that.
1. Theyre racist and xenophobic so they dont like migrants
2. They feel discriminated against by urban people so they dont like them either
3. Combine those two and its easy to see how they can revel in the suffering caused by the situation. Politics is about narratives and this one spread like wildfire because dems had no counter narrative. End of the day cities are dominated by democratic politics so its easy for republican narrative makers to point at cities that are failing to deal with a crisis and turn that into a reason to not vote for dems.
4. Everyone loves a good told you so. The problem for democrats with this one was that it was so incredibly visible. Made for very good TV on fox news
I think there's massive astroturfing with the usual talking points about drug trafficking, Maduro a dictator, Venezuelans are "Happy" plastered everywhere to try and distract from the naked fact of the oil.
> I promise there is no shortage at all of articles about Swift concurrency aimed at junior devs for whom their iOS app is the very first real programming project they've ever done.
You’d be surprised. Modern Swift concurrency is relatively new and the market for Swift devs is small. Finding good explainers on basic Swift concepts isn’t always easy.
I’m extremely grateful to the handful of Swift bloggers who regularly share quality content.
Paul Hudson is the main guy right now, although his stuff is still a little advanced for me. Sean Allen on youtube does great video updates and tutorials.
My friends are in real life, not on Mastodon or Bluesky.
Not everyone interested in doing detective work to find accounts related to their interests. It’s perfectly reasonable to expect social media platforms to help with that discovery.
If preventing centralization is important to you, then you should care about the product experience of the decentralized platforms.
> Not everyone interested in doing detective work to find accounts related to their interests. It’s perfectly reasonable to expect social media platforms to help with that discovery.
In that case you're just using these platforms for free entertainment in exchange for being advertised to. That's ok, but that use case is already solved by facebook, instagram, and twitter, better than Mastodon.
reply