dagmanVoice #1

Maybe Sound of Music. So depends on my mood.

Had to look that one up. Will check it out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laMbgNh3uns

Yes, as with social media. No easy ask, but guardrails are needed, especially as AI capabilities grow. We're in uncharted territory on so many levels.

Genie's out of the bottle now. We need to deal with it before it deals with us.

There are very good reasons for an independent Fed. Its mandate is clear: price stability and maximum employment. Interest rate decisions should follow the data, not the will of the president. History shows that politicizing monetary policy leads to bad outcomes. Hands off, POTUS.

Had to look up the Jekyll Island reference :) ... The Fed isn’t above government. It operates under a mandate from Congress. Independence is about who makes day-to-day rate decisions. Making the Fed more responsive to presidential pressure seems more likely to politicize it, not less.

In case my battery dies...

War + tariffs. 45 days til midterms!

Fine line to walk here. We don't want to slow progress or risk getting surpassed by the Chinese. We also need some guardrails to ensure AI doesn't get away from us. The composition of this "AI Force" will be key. Too far in either direction and we're in trouble.

I'm not sure there's a good way to stop hackers from accessing them. Hackers hack. They'll find a way around any restrictions.

Cancelling debt -- whether health, education, or otherwise -- sets a dangerous precedent. We're responsible for our debts. Do, though, address the reasons people get into medical debt in the first place.

I do somewhat buy the argument that price controls may reduce R&D spending, but we shouldn't be paying more for drugs than other wealthy countries.

Glad to see that Warsh is not a lap dog. There's hope.

Newton's third law of motion: Whenever one object exerts a force on a second, the second exerts a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction on the first

Broad-based tariffs seem so last century. I do hope this is the last gasp of last-century trade policy and we can all move on.

If secret talks can protect shipping and keep us out of another war, thumbs up to that. I'm not sure this administration can pull that off, but worth a shot.

Federal guardrails, state discretion. That feels like the right balance. And costs should follow demand. Data centers should pay for the grid upgrades they need.

Agreed. Leave it to the states. Lots to balance here, including jobs growth. Better to lean into the growth trends rather than swim upstream (apologies for the mixed metaphors).

I don't know. Maybe Ocean's Eleven?

Err on the side of transparency. Let the facts guide the judgement.

Of course not. It's the people's house. Mainstream media is our access, and a check on power.

Extremely risky investing. Unless it's a stablecoin, in which case it's just very risky.

Hoping the small modular reactors can shorten this by a lot. If we can't find some flexible new power sources, we're going to feel it in our electric bills.

Fair point, but I"m not sure statehood would protect them from the mistreatment. At least under this administration.

Saw it in theaters but will also stream it. Hoping it will be better the second time.

They need some oversight, for sure. My worry is the models get so good that even those overseeing them, companies or government, won't know they're being deceived.

More sweaters and fireplace fires. After the recent heat wave, I say bring it on.

Of course it is. Let's just hope we can mend these relationship when Trump is gone. Unfortunately, trust doesn't reset at inauguration day.

Hard no. Government’s role is referee, not shareholder.

Like the Fed, the oil reserve shouldn't be used as a political tool.

Especially when the agents are not likely to be neutral in motive. Feels very un-American. Trump excels at bringing out the worst in society.

48 days and counting!

Agree 100%. Reagan and Romney Republicans seem a dying breed. The party is now far more about loyalty to Trump than conservative principles. They've lost their way.

How about both?

Let's reserve that right for dead presidents, once everyone has had time to reflect on the true impact of the person and there are no repercussions for those deciding. I'm fairly confident Trump would not clear the bar.

How many holes in a doughnut? Think of a straw as a long doughnut. Not that it matters.

90% fewer injuries and crashes with self driving cars. Yes, they should be allowed.

Characters are characters, and stories are stories, but I do think there will still be a premium on knowing that it's real people you're watching. At least for some.

Hopefully the implications of alienating our closest allies is starting to get more real for Trump (if only that were true)

They (and maybe Meta) have the least to lose if the pace of progress is constrained.

Agree re: Zuckerberg. Not strong on innovation (e.g., $80B+ down the drain on metaverse), though they have made some good acquisitions.

I'm okay with physically frail if they're mentally capable. There's something to be said for the wisdom of years (ideally in collaboration with the energy and fresh thinking of youth)

I tend to anchor on what can be proven scientifically. Ghosts haven't met that bar.

Absence of evidence doesn't necessarily mean evidence of absence. I'm okay with that, but if I were a betting man...

True. But I tend to think reality is what it is, regardless of what I believe.

I can't fully relax until all the clothes are in the laundry.

It's a two horse race right now on the most impactful innovation in human history. I think it's justified, but the risk is huge.

As long as Trump is connected to it, it's going to be politicized and suffer from poor ticket sales and performer defections. Renovating it would be great if it weren't dependent on his name being attached. No good answer here except for him to walk away, which I don't see happening.

They should be able to share in the value they're creating for the schools (NIL) for sure, but not as employees. They're also there for an education, no?

I'd like to think I wouldn't, but I might.

If it saved me money and left all final approvals to me, sure. I wouldn't have said that a year ago, but it's come so far so fast.

Not in my lifetime, but at some point. Hard to imagine that we're the only intelligent life.

:) Do miss them. RIP Graham and Terry.

Long live Eric!

Whoever gets to recursive self-improving AI first will be at a distinct, and likely permanent, advantage. Slowing the pace is ideal, but the big challenge is ensuring everyone complies. We have to try, but I'm not optimistic.

Trump calls these safety risks a hoax, while leaders of all the AI frontier companies are emphatically warning of the serious consequences and need for action. Who do you believe?

Agreed. I don't feel like there's a clear answer here. We can't let authoritarian countries get ahead, but we can't let ourselves advance beyond our ability to control it. All considered, though, I think the risk of the former outweighs the risk of the latter.

While that may be true today, I'm not sure that'll be true tomorrow. My fear is that underrates their capabilities.

Would certainly bring more balance to the process. Candidates already mostly ignore states that aren’t competitive. Let them campaign for each and every vote.

What's the baby we're throwing out here? Why not an all-in popular vote?

Especially when those sounding the false alarms are leading the institutions responsible for protecting public health. We really need to course correct. Let's get back to anchoring on the science.

Completely agree. As long as you're capable, you should have a shot.

Agree the record's mixed. Success seems to depend on having narrow, well-defined objectives and strong allied support. Trump has been missing the mark on both, unfortunately.

Love that. I'm sure Hegseth would approve.

Not one of their best, but it was good to see the gang back.

Well, a cut's off the table, so moot, I think.

No work no pay.

If there were assurances it wouldn't drive our electric bill up, sure. Otherwise, probably not.

For sure. Even the appearance of such influence should be avoided. It speaks further to the family's troubling comfort with turning political access into personal gain.

Pumpkin spice? Fine. A whole Christmas isle at Costco? Feels a bit early.

Steady as she goes. One advantage of low-cost index funds is not having to worry about the daily gyrations.

He's the reason they're in the current mess. That's only one of the many reasons he shouldn't be named on the building.

The management shift at CBS News / 60 Minutes was definitely noticeable. I already miss Scott Pelley and Cecilia Vega.

I'm reluctant to say "only because of Trump". He was elected twice -- and after a Trump-inspired insurrection. I'm not 100% confident we wouldn't make equally bad decisions in the future. The last 10 years have really undermined my confidence in our collective wisdom.

I do hope you're right. I hope there's a collective sigh of relief when the chaos recedes and we return to something more normal. My fear is that we align to a new normal.

No one is above the law. For the president, it requires strong safeguards against politically motivated prosecutions, but the principle holds.

Agreed. The sequencing is part of the filmmaker's vision. Best to see it as they intended.

I hope you're right. This war has gone on way too long. I'm worried there are too many side channels and Russian allies to make it unsustainable for Russia, though. They have the scale to maintain a war of attrition longer than Ukraine, so I fear it's going to take either pressure from China and N. Korea (don't see that happening) or stronger support from the US and NATO allies.

Trump says AI doesn’t need guardrails, only a ‘high IQ’ president'. Can he please suggest one? Good grief.

There are times it's important that POTUS has the option, but with clear boundaries and time limits. Large scale and long-term commitments need the guardrails of Congress.

Completely agree. Guardrails / checks and balances only work if there's the will to enforce them. It's disheartening how we've come up short on that front through the Trump era. I hope this is a phase we learn from as a country rather than precedents we normalize.

You’d think the separation of powers already covers this. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case with this Congress. I'm not sure what the Republican party stands for anymore.

In this age of always-on media, I'm not sure that's necessary. I might feel differently, though, if we had a president who wasn't making shocking headlines daily.

Even if we could, continuing to scale our debt with GDP is not a healthy strategy. We need to get our deficits under control so that debt as a % of GDP decreases as we grow. Enough with burdening future generations with our excesses.

More than since the recent cuts. Foreign aid buys goodwill, influence, and stability at a pretty modest cost.

When those inside the frontier AI companies are expressing this level of fear, we really need to take it seriously. We are in uncharted territory.

That's very true. Maybe AI can help mitigate the risk that already existed before AI. Wouldn't it be ironic if AI ended up protected us from ourselves.

Love that. Well said. Can't wait for the mid-terms!

I do agree. It's a tax that comes with a bit of offsetting entertainment value. If people only bought for that, I'd be okay with it. Unfortunately, it's often people who can't really afford them who are buying them.

Depends on what the implications are of being an official language. I support English as the national standard, but not at the expense of practical accommodations for non-English speakers.

Really depends on the type of platform. If you want a platform where there's more accountability for what's said and behaviors more in line with how we engage in person, for sure. If you want behaviors not bound by societal norms, then no. I generally prefer the former, but to each his own.

A tax only on consumption could certainly simplify the tax system and bring consistency to where/how we get taxed (not when earn or hold, but when we spend), but we'd need other mechanisms to offset for lower income earners (maybe exemptions or rebates to a certain amount).

They're regressive on their own, yes. There are ways to address that, though (exemptions, rebates, credits). If implemented with such measures, a national sales tax can actually be more progressive, ensuring that the wealthy pay their fair share (if/when they want to enjoy their money -- i.e. spend it -- there's no way to avoid the tax).

Do people do this?

Free speech.

I agree that partisanship has gotten out of control. Working across the isle seems to be a lost art. As far as the VP decision, though, my hesitation in that taking it out of the hands of the president risks pushing partisanship inside the executive branch, only making matters worse.

True, but as the president's immediate successor and a tie-breaking vote in the Senate, it's best that they're somewhat aligned.

Yes, would love to find a way to avoid the 2-3% fees on credit card transactions, not to mention the other bank fees. Crypto can play a role here, but needs some type of national or major institutional backing.

Sorry, I mentally can't do black pudding.