The older the jpeg the more likely it is that he's moved on to another job by now.

It was something I read in a Reddit discussion. Rather than rely on that, I figured I'd go to the horse's mouth and read the Kentucky constitution directly. Section 152 covers how to handle vacancies. Unfortunately it's in old-timey legalese and is rather lengthy and complicated. So I had ChatGPT break it down for me.

Turns out there's an interesting wrinkle.

The Kentucky constitution is quite explicit; "Vacancies in all offices for the State at large, or for districts larger than a county, shall be filled by appointment of the Governor". A Senate seat counts as an "office for the State at large" because they represent the entire state.

The argument that the statute is unconstitutional is fairly straightforward:

• A U.S. Senate seat is a statewide elected office.
• Section 152 says statewide vacancies "shall be filled by appointment of the Governor."
• "Shall" is mandatory language.
• The legislature cannot override a constitutional command through ordinary legislation.

The problem is the 17th amendment of the United States constitution, which was ratified years after this section of the Kentucky constitution went into effect. The American constitution supersedes state constitutions. The 17th amendment was about how state legislatures choose senators, and it says the state legislature may empower the governor to do so. Which apparently gives final say as to how senators are appointed to the state legislature. So maybe the legislature can make that decision now, even though the state constitution says otherwise.

Nothing's ever simple. :(

I dunno, I'd recommend the governor at least try appointing someone. Stuff like this never gets sorted out until it actually goes to court.

If Americans have simply given up on the notion of rule of law or the primacy of constitutions then there are far bigger problems to address here than a mere Senate seat.

Why not try? Don't just preemptively surrender, make the Republicans actually show themselves for what they are.

If you'd like to analogize with special-purpose programs versus general purpose ones, you could consider an LLM to be more like an "operating system" rather than a single application running on that system. The LLM isn't specialized in a particular task, it supports running any task you want to throw at it.

In this analogy, the specialized applications that are running on the LLM would be the things called "agents" and "harnesses." They're the parts that hold the code that is tailored specifically to the particular task that they're for. So if I wanted to set up a system using an LLM to, for example, read court transcripts and automatically search legal databases for statutes and case law relevant to whatever's being discussed in them, I wouldn't simply copy and paste the transcript into the LLM's context and expect something useful to come back. I'd have to embed the LLM inside a system that prompts it correctly, has tools that can search legal databases, mechanisms for storing intermediate results, scripts to check the formatting of inputs and outputs, and so forth. None of that accessory stuff needs to be an ML model, it can just be conventional programming. Trying to train a specialized ML model from the ground up to do all that stuff without the associated harness helping it would be hugely wasteful.

I suppose another analogy could be the hardware itself. For every task that we use general-purpose von Neumann architecture CPUs for we could create a specialized chip on a purpose-specific circuit board. But instead for most tasks we find it's much cheaper and more convenient to create general-purpose computers and then program them for these specific tasks. Nowadays you'll often find that simple home appliances with just a few buttons and a few functions will have a full blown microcontroller inside them with firmware. Probably lots of unused inputs/outputs and ram and whatnot. That's because it's far cheaper and easier to build a factory that stamps out millions of general-purpose programmable chips than it would be to have hundreds of factory lines that each do a run of ten thousand custom-designed chips. It's genuinely less wasteful doing it that way.

I don't trust them to, of course not. I'm just pointing out the actual legal situation. The law is blatantly contrary to Kentucky's constitution.

Ah yes, the "golden ear". And how much do the services of one of these magically gifted witch-finders cost?

They passed a law saying that, but the Kentucky constitution still says otherwise. So we'll see what happens.

Best outcome would be that corporate refuses to reimburse, claiming that the payment was entirely the manager's personal decision that had nothing to do with them, and so the court rules the airline hasn't paid and the bailiffs can make a second visit.

And then the manager sues the airline too.

The US will be losing and then some French players will help from the sidelines.

Reparations don't have to be in the form of land.

Ah, so this is an entirely self-contained belief system. He chose this option because he's "eurocentric," and he's eurocentric because he chose this option.

Which, conveniently, Anthropic CEO defines as "AI from our competitors."