I'd guess making this a national pride thing will just make it less diverse. Answer would be training models on broader sources, not more nationalistic models.

No, that will decrease diversity across the model spectrum taken as an entire population.

This was an inevitable step for a surveillance state. Technology will consolidate the position of the leaders while making organised resistance impossible.

Bummer.

Leaders imply leadership. Rulers is more apt.

Only because no one is presenting both options to the public as a choice - cheap gas but you'll screw up dozens of countries and create insecurity for your kids. They would be less likely to want that if they understood the tradeoff. Let's be clear, this choice was made by rich people who'll make a lot more money from it, and they won't be the ones bearing the costs. So this isn't on Americans' greed, just their ignorance.

24 hours and no zionists complaining about how this is not tech news/flagging the post.

Thank you, I guess, for allowing the rest of us to talk about whatever we want.

Not when you're claming the moral high ground and all you have is guesswork.

It's not about what should be the case. It IS the case. If we should decide to change that it won't work if one government unilaterally decides who stays or who goes for obvious reasons. Last month we saw Trump prostrate himself before MBS, who is apparently totally legitimate.

"US will be ‘strongly involved’ in Venezuela oil industry, Trump says after Caracas attacked and Maduro captured"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/jan/03/caracas-e...

Yes, US foreign policy is connected to oil. It's not just about control but price.

No Interpol or ICC warrant, no answer to sovereignty or jurisdictional issues, no justified claim of extraterritoriality.

Can't we call a kidnapping what it is?

"That interference has overwhelmingly turned out well."

What an absurd thing to say. The US doesn't only overthrow dictatorships - it supports them too, as it suits its self-interest. Why not include the US interference when it SUPPORTED Hussein and later changed its mind - still think "interference turns out well" after backing a genocidal monster, supporting his invasion of a neighbour, invading twice and related deaths of 400 000 people?

Countries stabilise over time, that's what their people make happen. You ignore Indonesia, Iran, El Salvador, Nicaragua and dozens of disaster of US imperialism but give credit to the US when their populations rebuild them.

The US has done some positive things but they're the convenient accidents you've cherry picked to make your point.

And overthrows actual democratically elected leaders when they're inconvenient too. Hello, Chile. (The OG 9/11?)

You're saying only facts and somehow getting downvoted, I guess denial is easier for some people.

It isn’t denial it is tribalism at this point.

So true. I think everyone should remember exactly that anytime a MAGA tribesman uses the language of reason and compassion to gain an air of respectability. They have no concern for truth or ethics and don't deserve the legitimacy of respectful discourse. Identify it early, call them out on it, smash their hollow arguments and show everyone how little respect it earns. Reason's due for a comeback.

"I don't need to care about privacy because I have nothing to hide."

One counter is "since I've done nothing wrong, you have not need to care about what I hide". Both make assumptions, the difference is about who is trusted. Why should it be the authorities.