Article 5 doesn't oblige members to take any particular action. It only says that an attack on one is an attack on all, and leaves it to each member to decide what actions, if any, they will take in response.

States have always had control over federal elections and candidate qualifications. That's been fundamental to American federalism since the very beginning.

It's not like oath-breaking is the only disqualifier, and states decide those too.

If OpenAI owns a Copyright on the output of their LLMs, then I side with the NYT.

If the output is public domain--that is you or I could use it commercially without OpenAI's permission--then I side with OpenAI.

Sort of like how a spell checker works. The dictionary is Copyrighted, the spell check software is Copyrighted, but using it on your document doesn't grant the spell check vendor any Copyright over it.

I think this strikes a reasonable balance between creators' IP rights, AI companies' interest in expansion, and the public interest in having these tools at our disposal. So, in my scheme, either creators get a royalty, or the LLM company doesn't get to Copyright the outputs. I could even see different AI companies going down different paths and offering different kinds of service based on that distinction.

• The right to make medical decisions on behalf of the other
• The right to visit the other in the hospital
• The right to make funeral arrangements for the other
• The right to survivor's benefits (veteran's benefits, Social Security, private pension, etc.)
• Income tax breaks and credits
• Tax breaks on inheritance and estate taxes
• Tax breaks on money and property transfers between spouses
• Immigration and naturalization rights
• Can't be forced to testify against the other (usually)
• Communications between married partners are privileged from discovery in civil and criminal cases (usually)
• Joint adoption rights
• Bereavement leave
• Joint bankruptcy protection
• Automatic recognition of the relationship by every state, nation, etc.

Etc. There's something like 1,000 rights, privileges, and responsibilities that attach through marriage only.

The issue isn't whether it's a healthy idea. The issue is that the employer is overstepping personal and professional boundaries.

So apparently this woman works for a competing (fringe right wing) book publisher. In which case Scholastic might have grounds to sue.

There's already a mechanism for the House of Representatives to hold cabinet secretaries to account.

She'd have to read the US Constitution to know what I'm referring to, of course.

She's lying, of course. If she gave a rat's ass about the legitimacy of SCOTUS she wouldn't have accepted nomination in the first place.

Explain why you cannot be contacted by telephone call

No.

That's actually pretty articulate and respectful for a hexbear user.

"Hey, isn't this the same ammo we gave you 40 years ago?"

startrek.website is insidious. If you use it long enough, you begin to like it.