The level of influence his purchase had on the actual outcome of the election is debatable. I'm skeptical it mattered much at all. Twitter is just less important than people think. Trump, at worst, had about a 50/50 shot to win in any case.
Elon spent a couple hundred million on get-out-the-vote operations in swing states, which made him the single biggest donor supporting Trump by far and I think that's what really ingratiated him enough with Trump to head up DOGE, and for < 1% the price of Twitter.
And FWIW, Elon has tried to influence other races with his megaphone and money (like a WI supreme court race) and totally failed.
Do you mean to say that the Executive Branch does not have the authority to govern in accordance of the rougly 58% of the electorate which voted for them?
Do you mean that they are exceeding ther mandate as defined by the written, customary, and precedential body of law?
Do you mean that the government just dosent matter and that we should not be a nation of laws?
I don't really think those are questions in scope for HN, but people that I have a good reason to think don't understand plain basics of U.S. Constitutional law are opining otherwise.
For example, unlike Italy where I'm guessing the parent commentor hails from, or the Russian Federation of which Putin's activities have been quoted, U.S. law does not permit the President to unilaterally change elections. That is the singular point at issue here.
>>Do you mean to say that the Executive Branch does not have the authority to govern in accordance of the rougly 58% of the electorate which voted for them?
It has the authority to do that, it does not have the authority to break the law, which applies to them as well. The majority didn't elect trump to be king. Actions like the Tariffs and deployment of ICE in Minnesota, or the DOJ not prosecuting clear crimes from the Epstein Files are all indications that they, how to put, do not give a fuck.
>>Do you mean that they are exceeding ther mandate as defined by the written, customary, and precedential body of law?
Yes, provably so. In fact the tariffs are a good example, of both the illegal nature of Trump's executive decision and his complete carelessness about the decision of the supreme court.
>>Do you mean that the government just dosent matter and that we should not be a nation of laws?
You should, and your government is right now a group of grifters with no qualification who are trying to dismantle exactly that, one step at a time.
Your attempts at justifying their behaviour with legal finesse is a travesty and a clear dialectical game in favor of their objectives, and I would consider you an accomplice to their illegal plan to take over the USA.
“I think there's no decision ever that everyone at OpenAI agrees with,” Brockman says when I ask what his team thinks about the donations. “Even when we were 10 people. We’ve always been a truth-seeking culture. We have this scientific mission of discovery, and reality kind of doesn't care for your own opinion. It cares about what's true.”
After our interview, Brockman declined WIRED’s request for comment on the ICE shootings. Separately, he offered a more general statement clarifying his thoughts on the conversation with WIRED. "AI is a uniting technology, and can be so much bigger than what divides us today,” he said.
His justifications are just an ever changing rambling mess of word salad that never even come close to addressing the MAGA Inc donation specifically, who is this even for?
We're talking about a pretty straightforward donation to the incumbent President's Super PAC, not ASI solving world hunger or whatever.
> The problem is that people want a "free internet" without ads, and without any form of data harvesting. But they also don't want to pay any money, because the internet, as we all know, "is free".
I actually don't. I very much want to pay for something. But Google has wedged itself throughout the entire Internet.
I've been looking into paid options, but it is not easy to move from Google because they have stacked the web in their favor.
I don't have experience in basically all of these industrial processes, so I can't really comment there. I strongly support environmental protections, but I have no idea if what California does actually does that.
A separate but related topic is the warnings California requires of products. It's gotten a bit out of hand because every product you buy has the same warning, which completely dilutes what I hope was the intention. Even buying something as simple as an electric guitar comes with the "can cause cancer" warning because it can have nickel parts on it (usually for the bridge and tuners and frets).
reply