Not any more. Just like the lake/gulf of america, the politically correct term is now "Super Intelligence". Use it or out yourself as an agitator and say goodbye to whatever visa rule, license, grant, tax exemption or government contract underpins your business.

Imagine my confusion when people started throwing around the officially accepted, in my native language, abbreviation for artificial intelligence.

We are actively watching SI diverge from strictly relying on human knowledge to now creating its own repository of knowledge (see current math research) while training on synthetic data using RLVR over human curated data and human supervision. I don't think you realise that this trend is only going to continue to the point human language is going to stop being a crutch it relies on, in fact Astra can reason without CoT now.

nah, that abbreviation already had a well known meaning in science: the international unit system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI

Not at all. Trump ordered everyone , during his speech at the United Nations , to use "SI" from now on, instead of "AI". That was one of his important priorities.

If you see someone use "SI" they are sending you a signal. Just politely correct their mistake.

No. No one is seriously calling it this. It's virtue signaling.

Why? Are you a traitor?

/s

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/trump-anyone-sa...

The vote is skewed because of the large number of Latinos and East Asians that have flowed into the country over the last three decades. If you tally the vote by ethnicity you'll see there's a large amount of support from the white majority (which is getting smaller every year) for these measures.

That is a debate whenever a democracy goes to war. There are few bright line rules and decisions invariably boil down the moral character of commanders. But do not scratch that itch. There are some not-good stories in america's last hundred years of war. The current situation is not much of an abberration for those who read beyond recent decades.

And yet they lie and scheme and have propaganda campaigns designed to confuse the ordinary person.

Many of whom suck, but others are just e.g. scared old ladies who got told that God hates abortions after decades of their church not seeming to care.

> Democracy in the US is dead. People are incredibly dumb[...]

So what alternative or incremental improvement to democracy would you propose? And more importantly, how would you like to get there?

Democracy isn't dead, but in the US, it's sure in troubled water. The two-party system encouraged people not to think for themselves but instead have to choose between two parties that, at least initially had common ground but now are diametrically opposed to one another. Now one of the two parties is pretty weak, having lost ground, giving the impression that it had lost touch with the common people and focused on loud but semi-fringe issues. One party owning the system has the same look as Democracy is dead.

Not to mention that even with a strong leader in both parties, we are on a race to the bottom, each election oscillating between the two parties, each spending lots of money and focus undoing what the other party did. When the two parties had common ground, this was much less of an issue.

In the end, this isn't going to get fixed, the US is going to just keep printing money, blowing up the deficit until the last few countries outside the US who trust us no longer do. We'll be in too many wars, in too many places, with too few friends. End up the same way the USSR was when they were in Afghanistan for too long.

I don't think even if you pulled money out of politics, banned stock trading for elected officials, no foreign wars, universal health care - that we would right the ship. Our problems are fundamental. Our early leaders warned us against a two-party system, trying to show us the problems it would lead to, and we ignored it.

"Democracy is dead" because I disagree with the policy preferences of the majority of voters.

The US multination corporations have benefited massively. The common American shares a lower portion of the wealth than ever before. Wealthy foreigners are taking an outsized portion of higher learning seats, and driving up prices. Then they take the white collar jobs. This clearly is keeping downward pressure on the average American economically, more so for the disenfranchised.

With 0 immigration, even sending most of the white collar immigrants back, the US would still be the greatest nation on the planet, except the common American would enjoy more of the spoils. If these immigrants were so valuable, other the countries would be competing hand over fist to bring in as many as possible as quickly as possible, but they're not.

It’s precisely because I’m an immigrant that I chafe at the narcissism of immigrants who want to overstate our contribution to the U.S. as it exists today. The U.S. was already a fully formed, technologically advanced superpower by the time my family got here in 1989. Desis like me came here because our effort goes a thousand times farther within the system—constitutional, legal, cultural, etc.—that Americans created than it does in the countries we created. We shouldn’t be blowing smoke up our own asses and pretending that we had more to do with it than we did. It’s obnoxious, diminishes the contributions of others, and is contrary to our own interest, because it gives us a false sense of what made America into such a place that we were willing to leave our family behind to come here.

Yes, the U.S. benefited from key foreign talent acquisitions like bringing over German scientists after World War I. The 1952 H-1 Act and some ad hoc programs brought over college professors and people like that. But “mass skilled immigration” in the form of H-1B, OPT, etc., didn’t happen until the early 1990s. We should evaluate these programs on their own terms, not link them into some grandiose fictional narrative. Especially now where AI is going to displace many knowledge workers.

You can’t see any change in the trend line in the mid 1980s: https://www.aei.org/economics/eu-vs-usa-part-v/. The growth slope for the U.S. has been very consistent since the early 1980s.

Yes, a Syrian immigrant who made it through the very strict immigration filters we had in place in the 1950s. (Also an odd example because Jobs had no contact with his father and was raised and socialized entirely by his American mother.)

The post-1990 program is very different in scope. The 1947 rules provided for a six-month work eligibility that was granted to very few people: https://thepienews.com/us-launches-re-evaluation-of-opt/. Today, OPT is three years and granted to 300,000 people.

> Most expats will rarely hear or need Dutch

That is an overstatement. Dutch is the primary language everywhere like the native language of any country. It is true that in major cities most people speak excellent English and you can definitely manage easily without speaking Dutch.

But Dutch is spoken absolutely everywhere and most signage is only in Dutch. Also, as soon as you get a bit outside of the big cities, you find many people with a middling level of English, similar to most other countries in Europe. Even in cities, many working class people and actually most immigrants from non English speaking countries only speak Dutch.

How about the language usage at workplace after graduation? Would one have to learn Dutch or still continue everything with English?

Also is it easy to get a job after graduation in Netherlands in STEM field? As an example if someone graduated in medicine (doctor, nurse, etc.) then wouldn’t proficiency in Dutch be mandatory to work?

Most Dutch will only speak English to non-Dutch. Which is really annoying if you’re there trying to learn Dutch

Same in Sweden, welcome!

2 World Wars broke out that had impacts on us, it left a ton of our peers completely devastated and we were not. UK did not end food rationing until 1954. By that time, US was building suburbs out, sending a ton of GI to higher education and Marshall plan had our completely functioning factories turning out goods by metric tons an hour.

You missed reserved currency advantage

So can you please explain me the rise of Switzerland, Singapore and South Korea? No natural resources, no energy independency, small countries surrounded by enemies. And why Russia that has all the natural resources of the world is such a failed state? Starting conditions are something that was valid around 2000 years ago in the civilization and empires rise and fall. Not actual anymore.

The physical hardware is a nearly irrelevant commodity compared to the software and the ecosystem.

> never spoken to a European

Irrelevant. The EU is not taking American tech, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon away from 330 million Europeans and replacing it with..nothing? without widespread outrage. In a lot of ways it would cause a societal collapse.

Maybe that’s true in your close people bubble. Don’t generalise it to every European. I’m pretty sure there a big Trump fans base in Poland, Hungary and Germany to name a few.