Personally, I like extending the metaphor.

• Sharing information you have no good reason to believe is gross negligence (in this case, the power being your ability to get things in front of people). If you haven’t read the article and checked for common sense, don’t post it.
• Upvoting a post based on the title without looking at the source is a minor version of the same.
• Giving non-primary sources when the primary source is right there is a form of gatekeeping. Give me the court ruling pdf!

He’s voice acted a whole bunch of animal characters though; I think the title is false.

I absolutely need a banana for scale.

Great; that describes all functions, so we’ve nothing to worry about.

Cool; walk me through attention layers plz.

Thank you. I really can’t read it seems.

Very little coverage on this one; it’s been a longstanding issue. Anybody extracted the executive order text/rule change?

to be fair, shutting down yourself is pretty easy on the corporate espionage scale.

I recommend politics. Local politics can get their presence in your neighborhood to chill, set examples for other municipalities, and lead to broader office (if done well). Legal, community driven, and fairly direct. Does require talking to your neighbors, sometimes in public, which is a substantial downside.

Failing politics, I think your next best bet is probably attempting to do some hacking/espionage work. LLMs make this more scalable than it used to be, and they seem pretty happy to hack big companies. Costs a lot of money, will enrich other tech bros with high probability, definitely illegal, and it’s pretty hard to do this hard enough to crush the business (tho if you can siphon enough money out???). But you won’t have to talk to a neighbor or speak in public, so that’s nice.

I’ve heard conversations of this sort, pretty sure we’ve seen utopic books in this direction.

(which, reminder, means you should be suspicious of it and the sources. Internet loves to tell you what you want to hear (and what enrages you). Check the source; read the argument; see if you’d find it convincing for a different conclusion.)

(Were this the case in the minds of these law&order judges, all would be struck down by 8th amendment. They are not, so at least one class of informed folk generally disagree.)

(I suspect this is largely untrue; this is clearly bad for the politicians and management over the executions, and afaict it has never been politically wise to botch an execution. No faster way to seem incompetent to your ‘law&order’ constituents. Note that inhumane execution methods have been rejected by the courts before, and are a real fast way to get yourself sued.)

Because citizens (even criminal ones) have a right not to be subject to cruel and inhumane punishment; and pulling the plug medically is very likely at least one of those. There’s a question of if it is possible to reliably have humane executions, but clearly TN isn’t good at it.

One should probably at least consider the military applications. Meteors killed the dinosaurs…

Could somebody post a high-information content version of this?

(I’ll note that even states refused to pursue Musk. It appears that you can claim to do something illegal for a few hours on the internet, reap the media rewards, and then edit the post. Political activists, do take note.)

Presidential immunity only extends to official acts see here. That said, its so poorly defined as to be irrelevant at the moment.

Still, I suspect distributing checks from the federal government that was not appropriated by congress would very much fail to qualify.

Yes it is illegal for you to do that, as it would be for Trump. But no, Trumps proposed 5k checks to all adult citizens, as I understand it, is legal. I’m pretty disappointed in the other answers. A few relevant points.

0. Remember the model for sending checks to folks: CARES. Both Biden and Trump have previously done this.
1. Congress can legally amend and pass laws. Note that the law that makes bribing for votes illegal is not in the constitution, so it requires only the usual legal action to amend it.
2. I note that the policy Trump proposed isn’t discriminatory on who you vote for; your hypothetical does. (I suspect this is irrelevant for the legality, but certainly helps the optics.)

not unfortunate imo! Disenfranchisement should be kept far far away from state power.