There is evidence that the group that Khalil headed did endorse Hamas and distributed pro-Hamas propaganda. Whether this news article is true or if it's propaganda remains to be seen.
"He has remained active in recent disruptive protests, including last week’s takeover of the Milstein Library at Barnard College. Videos and photographs posted on X depict him holding a bullhorn near the library entrance and engaged in discussion with school administrators.
That protest featured violent propaganda flyers that purportedly came directly from the “Hamas Media Office,” including one pamphlet titled “Our Narrative… Operation Al-Aqsa Flood,” which justified the Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel that killed 1,200 people — and in which women were repeatedly raped, whole families were executed and 251 hostages were taken to the Gaza Strip.
Others at the Barnard library takeover passed around trading card-like photos of notorious Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who was killed by an Israeli airstrike in Lebanon last September."
"Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents aided a Columbia -owned apartment inhabited by Mahmoud Khalil, who fronts a radical group, Columbia United Apartheid Divest (CUAD), which sympathizes with terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and calls for the “end of Western Civilization.”"
Whether or not this is true, I can't say at this point or if this is just propaganda. But at the very least it does say that his group sympathizes with terror groups and if that's true, then it makes him eligible for deportation.
Huh? This just reinforces what I said. He isn’t accused of distributing pro-Hams propaganda or saying he supports them. At best you have unsubstantiated claims on X that someone distributed some images at an event he was also at. That isn’t very conclusive and likely won’t hold up in a normal court of law.
He is the leader of a group that is being accused of endorsing Hamas and distributing pro-Hamas literature. If true, then him being the leader absolutely means he is responsible and should be held responsible. Unless you don't think that Trump should be held responsible for the actions of Musk.
Obviously a newspaper article isn't enough evidence and even the veracity of the article remains in question, the assumption is that there will be actual evidence. If true, he should be deported. If false, then he deserves to go free. It's pretty cut and dry.
I don’t think the article even was so bold as to say his organization distributed pro Hamas flyer. They say someone at the protest did and leave it to your inference that it was the org he leads
> He’s been a regular fixture on news programs discussing the group’s disruptive efforts, including an interview on Quds News Network done completely in Arabic
Why is it relevant that he did an interview in Arabic? Like seriously?
As others have said the rest reads as just guilt by association.
To be maximally fair to the other position it has made me reluctant to protest against Israel despite being broadly against them. There are too many people in that movement who are clearly racist, but it’s also unfortunate that pro Israeli forces campaign hard to conflate opposition to Israel with opposition to Jewish people
> Secretary of State Marco Rubio shared a link on X to a news article about Mr. Khalil’s arrest and issued a broad promise: “We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.”
I don't consider twitter posts as anything more than the ramblings of the deranged, and don't really see a twitter post as evidence that someone already got deported considering how much politicians lie on there.
News coverage seems to suggest immigrants can be detained while moved to revoke their green cards are made, but it’s incredibly troubling that no one seems to know what’s up, the government agents arresting him seemed to think he had a student visa and in general there is so little visibility
You're suggesting there was a previous administration that rounded up lawful permanent residents without court orders on US soil, on the charge that they committed forbidden speech?
oh yes. and he broke a law passed by congress. that makes it even MORE appalling, as all three branches were complicit in an egregious breach of the constitution, not a single one stopped to hold the line
Yes, but FDR's executive order allowed the military to order the exclusion of anyone from any place. The actual thing a person could be arrested for was passed unanimously by Congress to support the EO and enforced by courts. Even during a real national emergency, nobody was disappearing Japanese people without due process. Korematsu was arrested and tried and convicted and their conviction was upheld by courts of appeal and the Supreme Court. At the time FDR, Congress, the Court, and everybody else thought they were doing due process. There's a lot of daylight between that and what Trump is doing.
The US has legal reasons now. Ukraine is a sovereign country and would be more than happy to accept US military bases. The US hasn't sent soldiers because they don't want to go to war with Russia
Why would US get involved now when they have nothing to gain and possibly escalate the situation to WW3?
If US owned resources in Ukraine, they have very good reason to deploy troops over there. Russia won't escalate the situation by attacking american resources and troop. This should slow down the war to a good extent combined with the cease fire agreements.
Your logic doesn't make sense. Why would Russia be willing to escalate to ww3 in the first scenario but back down in the second scenario?
And if getting involved will escalate to ww3, what difference does those resource deals make? Either american involvement (via NATO or this mineral deal logic) forces Russia to back down or it doesn't.
US signed memorandum of security for Ukraine. Not involving into Ukraine war means:
1. Nuke is the only option to guarantee security. Everyone should get one. Iran, Venezuela etc.
2. If you have nukes you can occupy neighbors with little/no punishment. Taiwan is the next in line.
3. US is not an ally, could not be trusted in any way.
Sad to see how Trump is dismantling USA from it's role as a global superpower.
1. Nuke doesn't guarantee anything in current situation. Russia might blow up the nuke moment it arrives in Ukr.
2. US France UK has made it very clear that they can occupy and establish military bases in non nuclear countries without repercussions, especially in Middle East and Africa.
3. Memorandum was signed by multiple nuclear countries and none of thier troops are deployed in Ukraine. Besides US was the largest supplier of weapons in Ukraine.
US is hardly affected by Ukr situation. For them to get involved, there should be something at stake. If they owned something in Ukr, they would have reason to defend it with US troops. Russia won't escalate by attacking US troops or resources.
I agree though I have actually noticed that Amazon is more clear about this than they used to be. They now clearly say you’re buying a license not the book and it may have just been a Europe thing but I think it even made me confirm that I knew some of the implications of that distinction.
Unlike a lot of people on here I think I don’t have fundamental problems with DRM, but I think consumers absolutely should be guaranteed more rights over the things they buy. Maybe something like.
* access is non revokable and if any part of the drm scheme stops working the provider must provide a drm stripping tool
> * access is non revokable and if any part of the drm scheme stops working the provider must provide a drm stripping tool
This is unenforcable even in the presence of good will. (If a company goes bankrupt, they might simply not have the resources, or, if relevant programmers leave, then they might not have the ability, to distribute a stripping tool.) A practical measure in this direction might be to mandate that DRM schemes "phone home," which they surely do already, and that they are required to disable themselves if they don't get an affirmative signal.
(Of course, this has its problems from the publishers' point of view, but as a customer I'd be very pleased with it.)
Make it a legal requirement during development of any DRM that the tool is created with the DRM. Release of the source code for the tool during bankruptcy, release of the tool and hosting as a legal requirement if they no longer want to support it indefinitely.
Theres no reason taking away our rights should be easy for the company when DRM mostly just makes life miserable for anyone trying to buy digital goods legally.
I think there should also be a limit of how long you can use DRM. Something like 5 or 10 years. After that for most things your sales have plummeted and now you're just punishing the consumer. If you want people to buy again for some new format or whatever you need to add actual value. Working on the new thing when purposefully ignoring the old is not value.
There's no key system like that that could possibly work.
But you already are required to deposit your books (or other copyrighted works) with the British Library upon publication and many other countries do the same thing.
User queries were at least historically useful to train smaller models from larger models. You need to know the kind of questions real people ask to train a model that’s good at answering those questions
Retirement is about having other people take care of you. If there are less people overall there are less resources to care for the elderly who aren't working. With expanding populations this is easier to manage because the fraction of people who are elderly is smaller, but it can be a huge drain if that changes. This is about resources and no amount of financial engineering can solve it, though financial engineering will probably keep people off the streets
The law requires Oracle who hosts their data companies that provide cdn services to stop working with them. The law did require them to suspend service, but not quite as soon as they did and nothing had changed legally
They shut down before the law required them to (by a few hours), and now they’re back despite no changes in law or action by the president. Biden had already issued an executive order, nothing changed
That would be my question also. You can't explain the shutdown as following the law if the law didn't change between the time of the shutdown and coming back on. It seems to me like the more accurate assessment here is an anticipation of policy changes, which however fruitful do not reflect any change in law, but perhaps some change in the degree of reassurance that the law won't be enforced.
If it's not that, it may well be as the original commenter in this thread suggested a stunt to make a point.
I hear people say this kind of thing but it confuses me.
1. What does inherit limitations mean?
2. How do we know something is an inherit limitation
3. Is it a problem if arguments for a particular inherit limitation also apply to humans?
From what I’ve seen people will often say things like AI can’t be creative because it’s just a statistical machine, but humans are also “just” statistical machines. People might mean something like humans are more grounded because humans react not just to how the world already works but how the world reacts to actions they take, but this difference misunderstands how LLMs are trained. Like humans LLMs get most of their training from observing the world, but LLMs are also trained with re-enforcement learning and this will surely be an active area of research.
One of many, but this is a simple one - LLMs are only limited to knowledge that is publicly available on the internet. This is "inherit" because thats how LLMs are essentially taught the information they retrieve today.
