Why is lemmy.ml still running, though?

I’d be willing to pay for a few subscriptions if I didn’t feel like subscription services are trying to gouge me left and right. I miss the days when subscriptions to Netflix and Spotify gave me access to 90% of content online.

Contrast this with Steam, which gives me centralized convenience, seamless updates, online sync, achievements… No wonder that’s where I spend almost all of my entertainment money these days.

He’s not warning of AI controlling nuclear weapons. He’s speaking of the development of nuclear weapons as a cautionary tale that applies to the current development of AI: that, like the scientists who built the bomb, current AI researchers might one day wake up terrified of what they have created.

Whether current so-called AI is intelligent (I agree with you it isn’t by most definitions of the world) doesn’t preclude the possibility that the technology might cause irreparable harm. I mean, looking at how Facebook algorithms have zeroed in on outrage as a driving factor of engagement, it’s easy to argue that the algorithmic approach to content delivery has already caused serious societal damage.

Zuck clearly put it there as a joke/Easter egg. I know it’s weird, but dystopian multibillionnaires whose life’s work undermines the very foundations of democracy around the world can have a (bad) sense of humor too.

Oh, I see! I misread the article. Good news!

It sounds like Erdogan is saying this is conditional on the EU reopening talks about Turkiye joining. Is that even happening?

The terrible message is precisely that NATO is only defensive in theory, but is willing to expand into the Pacific to defend a territory that is nowhere near its original purview.

The problem with the “purely defensive” argument is that historically, NATO Article 5 has been invoked to declare a war on a country that only indirectly threatened a NATO ally’s regional stability. That’s how NATO ended up bombing Serbia, which was doing despicable things to Albanians, but was not threatening NATO sovereignty to a degree that justifies Article 5.

Add these two together and China’s opposition to a NATO presence in the Pacific makes a whole lot of sense.

Except we all know the U.S. is aggressively containing China. NATO getting into the China containment business sends a terrible message.

The hell does NATO need a presence in the Pacific for.