Governments like everything and everyone in their own little stack and in the government's self established status quo. When Paula Protester comes along with her LGBTQ++ agenda, governments don't like that. Paula Protester represents instability to the status quo established by the ruling class. Governments don't like instability. Governments like everyone sorted, coallated, and stapled, all in their respective stacks, so dissidents and social change advocates are viewed as adversaries and are not welcome. If it's genuuinely 'for the chirren' then it would seem to me that making parents be parents and take responsibility for their child's actions would go a very long way. However, we make laws with the lowest common denominator in mind. I don't want your children involved in adult activities online. However, just like any education program, the success is determined by parental involvement in their child's daily lives, and it starts at home. It's a lot easier to make government responsible for the child's developement, than actually requiring parents to be parents. I hear parents say 'I'm not technologically inclined.' Well, get there. The safety and well being of your child hangs in the balance. Take a class, read some of the millions of step by step tutorials that exist all over the internet. Ask some questions in forums. The possibilities are endless. Protecting your child is work, just like rasing them is work, and therein lies the issue.

This guy gets it. And from my professional experience, Gen Z sucks at separating the two.

While details of the Pentagon's plan remain secret, the White House proposal would commit $277 million in funding to kick off a new program called "pLEO SATCOM" or "MILNET." Please do not call it "MILNET". That term's already been taken. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MILNET In computer networking, MILNET (fully Military Network) was the name given to the part of the ARPANET internetwork designated for unclassified United States Department of Defense traffic.[1][2]

TD Cowen (which is basically the US arm of one of the largest Canadian investment banks) did an extensive report on the state of AI investment. What they found was that despite all their big claims about the future of AI, Microsoft were quietly allowing letters of intent for billions of dollars worth of new compute capacity to expire. Basically, scrapping future plans for expansion, but in a way that's not showy and doesn't require any kind of big announcement. The equivalent of promising to be at the party and then just not showing up. Not long after this reporting came out, it got confirmed by Microsoft, and not long after it came out that Amazon was doing the same thing. Ed Zitron has a really good write up on it; https://www.wheresyoured.at/power-cut/ Amazon isn't the big surprise, they've always been the most cautious of the big players on the whole AI thing. Microsoft on the other hand are very much trying to play things both ways. They know AI is fucked, which is why they're scaling back, but they've also invested a lot of money into their OpenAI partnership so now they have to justify that expenditure which means convincing investors that consumers absolutely love their AI products and are desparate for more. As always, follow the money. Stuff like the three mile island thing is mostly just applying for permits and so on at this point. Relatively small investments. As soon as it comes to big money hitting the table, they're pulling back. That's how you know how they really feel.