What doesn't make any sense is proposing the constitution be interpreted as it was when there was no general right to vote or general right to political speech... then claiming this is the "voters decide" option.
Your argument undermines the whole idea of written constitutions. It just means that we should ignore the First Amendment altogether. If there is a problem with what people thought in 1789, how can words written back then possibly bind elected legislatures in 2026 in any whatsoever?
First, the US constitution as it currently stands admits modifications. Amendments are version bumps. My understanding is that they’re harder to come by these days.
Second, the constitution may be written but the interpretation is always changing. In particular, the interpretation of laws around restriction of free speech have lots of history of being interpreted in ways that may or may not be congruent with the intentions of the original authors, who’re dead, so we’ll never know the truth of it. It’s only been 107 years since the US Supreme Court decided that anti-draft speech in time of war COULD BE ILLEGAL. Apparently that was partially overturned in 1969.
Thirdly [naming, caching and out by one bugs!] it is far from clear that a written constitution will lead to a durable republic. It’s only been ~250 years. Too soon to tell.
> Second, the constitution may be written but the interpretation is always changing
It’s okay if the change is because you think the new interpretation is closer to what the constitution originally meant.
It’s democratically illegitimate to change the interpretation otherwise. A written constitution is already an impingement on democracy. But how can it be that whoever is doing the interpreting is allowed to restrict democratically adopted laws in ways the constitution didn’t originally intend to restrict them?
There is no right to vote in the constitution as written and interpreted in the 1700s. There is also no guarantee of freedom of speech. The first amendment was considered a rule that only applied federally.
What's democratically illegitimate is everything you wrote in this thread.
If your state government threw you in jail for what you just wrote that would be perfectly aligned with your "original understanding" interpretation of the U.S constitution.
> I personally have a theory that the parting gift of the Baby Boomer generation will be to get rid of Social Security and Medicare since they don't need it anymore.
They do need social security and Medicare. Studies show even with social security and Medicare half or more might struggle in retirement due to insufficient savings.
If you had created a project with custom instructions and/ or custom style I think you could have gotten Claude to respond the way you wanted just fine.
No, this is not my goal. My goal was to illuminate that Claude is a product which produces the most statistically relevant content to a prompt submitted therein.
> I'm not sure why your failure to do so should be taken up with law.com?
The post to which I originally replied cited "Claude" as if it were an authoritative source. To which I disagreed and then provided a definition from law.com. Where is my failure?
> Law.com's first definition is inapplicable.
From the article:
The pledge includes a commitment by technology companies to
bring or buy electricity supplies for their datacenters,
either from new power plants or existing plants with
expanded output capacity. It also includes commitments from
big tech to pay for upgrades to power delivery systems and
to enter special electricity rate agreements with utilities.[0]
> That leaves us with the second definition, which says nothing about whether a pledge is legally binding.
To which I originally wrote:
Without careful review of the document signed, it is
impossible to verify which form of the above is applicable
in this case.
Said article is not about a loan backed by a security agreement. That eliminates law.com definition 1.
Law.com definition 2 is silent on whether pledges are binding.
Thus ended your research.
I don't know why you care if Claude.com is authoritative. Law.com isn't either, the authoritative legal references are paywalled. A law dictionary, as we've demonstrated by law.com's second definition's vagueness, isn't necessarily even the correct reference to consult.
Your failure, I suppose, is that you provided worse information than Claude. I suppose you should have typed "Don't cite Claude please" and moved on.
> If I recall correctly, the OAI-Microsoft deal just defined it as “AI-shaped tech that can generate $100 billion in annual profits”, which I think is actually close to the correct answer
So if they hit 100 billion annual then it's AGI but if Kellogg's launches “FrostedFlakes-GPT" and steals 30% of the market it's no longer AGI at 70 billion?
All I know is it's an infuriating experience that I basically have to speedrun through almost every single day before I can actually get work done. My Linux laptop must be over a decade old by now and it just doesn't have this problem. The Windows 98 computer I had as a child didn't have this problem.
Whatever it is that Microsoft is doing they should probably stop. A goddamn calculator application shouldn't require a high performance workstation to even launch. It worked fine before, now it takes ages and can't even handle input properly. That's stupid and there's really no excuse for it.
With Windows 11, all the stuff going on in the background and so much new excess disk I/O just dwarfs that of Windows 10 on the same hardware.
And that was orders of magnitude more than W98.
Your SSDs are getting hammered like never before.
The first time you open the new, sluggish replacements for old standbys they take way more time to load, but then if you don't turn off the PC completely they are already in memory lots of times so they pop up faster in subsequent times, and with simple things like Calculator the actual calculation is not any slower than it was in 1998.
At least as long as your PC hardware is 20X as fast :\
> Under what statute is it illegal to request legal fees?
You can request anything you want? Granting it would be illegal.
An attorney asking the judge to break the law and award attorney fees is literally asking for something illegal in most circumstances. There are exceptions. (By illegal I mean contrary to law.)
It's funny that 4 people downvoted me instead of bothering to check Wikipedia.
I'm not familiar with Openclaw and but the trick to solve this would be to embed a style reminder at the bottom of each user message and ideally hide that from the user with the UI.
This is how roleplay apps like Sillytavern customize the experience for power users by allowing hidden style reminders as part of the user message that accompany each chat message.
