The French ambassador for digital affairs, Adrien Abecassis, states that a minimized international consensus on regulating artificial intelligence is possible, despite rivalries among major powers, in order to prevent the risks associated with this rapidly expanding technology. (translated)
Trump is right. Let's not delude ourselves. There will never be an international consensus to limit the evolution of AI. So, imposing barriers is simply allowing other countries to move forward and ultimately dominate others. The country that progresses most rapidly in the field of "super intelligence" will be the one that rises to the top of the global food chain. (translated)
Støre, Stubb & others must give their negotiators clear instructions: don’t allow a few countries opposed to rules to set the ceiling for everyone else. Secure a mandate to negotiate a new treaty—and, if consensus is once again used as a veto, take negotiations elsewhere #Negotiations #Treaty #Consensus #Nospecificcountrycodesarementionedinthetweet.
A report recommends maintaining a legal retirement age for any future reform in order to protect people with interrupted careers, and emphasizes the importance of consensus between unions and employers. (translated)
The U.S. Senate rejected the CLARITY Act, a crucial piece of legislation on cryptocurrency regulation, due to a lack of consensus between Republicans and Democrats. (translated)
The de-indexation of pensions given the catastrophic state of our public finances should not even be a topic for debate. There should be a strong consensus on the subject. A society only makes sense in order to save future generations. Even retirees should see their interest in this. (translated)
Funny how pacing AI down became consensus overnight but saying it 6 months ago would've gotten you called a luddite and AI doomer. I'm used to it because my work warns about tech overtaking humans, but now that even the tech giants agree I understand I might've underestimated it. https://t.co/eR3vxvy5mp #AIEthics #TechDebate #Luddite #Nospecificcountriesarementionedinthetweet.
Consensus Is Not an Argument “Historians agree that Nazism was right-wing” is not an argument. It is intellectual outsourcing: replacing evidence with the number of authorities who repeat the same conclusion. Ideologies require criteria. You cannot cherry-pick political characteristics, notice that they fit your preferred category, and then pretend the classification has been demonstrated—especially when virtually every item on the list exists on both sides. Nationalism? Both. Militarism? Both. Protectionism? Both. State intervention? Both. Economic planning? Both. Collectivism? Both. Welfare policy? Both. Authoritarianism? Neither side has a monopoly. So what actually makes Nazism “right-wing”? The economic argument collapses even faster. Nazi Germany heavily directed its economy. So did the United States and Britain during the same period of war preparation and total war. If state direction proves socialism, then your criterion suddenly makes the Allies socialist too. If it doesn’t, stop using it selectively to classify Nazism. You cannot rig the test and then celebrate the result. And here is the inconvenient part: if economic policy cannot independently resolve the question, then the Nazis’ own ideological claims cannot simply be dismissed because they are inconvenient. Their party was literally called the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, and they repeatedly described their movement as socialist. No, self-description does not automatically make them socialist. Political movements can lie. But rejecting their description requires an actual criterion demonstrating why it was false. “Because historians say so” is not a criterion. It is an evasion. The deeper problem is that modern political taxonomy often works backwards: decide the label first, then curate the evidence until the label looks inevitable. That is not historical analysis. It is circular reasoning wearing an academic costume. So ask the question that actually matters: was Nazism committed to individual liberty—or to subordinating the individual to the collective, the state, and the nation? If Nazism is right-wing, prove it from coherent ideological principles
Minister Hermans over westnijlvirus: ‘Voorkom muggenbeten, slaap onder een klamboe’ https://t.co/63QlALcdQR Onder de #klamboe in het bos. Onder de klamboe in het park. Onder de klamboe op de fiets. Onder de klamboe in de auto. Onder de klamboe over straat. Onder de klamboe bij het hardlopen. Onder de klamboe bij het wandelen. Onder de klamboe in de supermarkt. Onder de klamboe bij de visboer. Onder de klamboe in de kroeg. Onder de klamboe in het theater. Onder de klamboe bij een concert. Onder de klamboe in het restaurant (behalve als je zit). Onder de klamboe in de sportschool. Onder de klamboe op school. (Alleen op de gang). Onder de klamboe bij de dokter. Onder de klamboe in het ziekenhuis. Onder de klamboe op de operatiekamer. Onder de klamboe tijdens het skiën. Onder de klamboe in de ski-lift. Onder de klamboe in het vliegtuig. Vergeet ik dan nog iets? Oh ja... Sex onder de klamboe. Maar alleen op zijn hondjes. Zonder klamboe mag u alleen maar thuis blijven. Maar wel onder de klamboe. En er moet een klamboe-OMT komen. En een RedKlamboe-team. Heeft @KlokPieter al een Klamboe-consensus afgekondigd? En is Klamboe-Maarten al in stelling gebracht. Is @MarionKoopmans al op zoek naar de oorsprong van de Klamboe-mug? En is er al een Klamboe-vaccin? Boe. Gewoon boe. Klamboe. #westnijlvirus #klamboe #gezondheid
Het proces van huisarts Roodenburg die zijn BIG-registratie en daarmee zijn beroep is ontnomen vanwege kritiek op (corona)vaccinaties: https://t.co/FtQQn5kxh7 Zo wordt dus die “wetenschappelijke consensus” geconstrueerd. Experts die er anders over denken worden veroordeeld.👇 #coronavirus #vaccinatie #gezondheidszorg
🚨 Un message à tous les Français 🚨 Dans les mois qui viennent, tu vas voir de plus en plus de propagande sur Elon Musk. Envoie ça à tes proches. Pas demain. Maintenant. Elon Musk est en train de détruire, à l’échelle mondiale, le plus vieux mensonge politique du siècle : l’idée que seuls l’État, les intermédiaires et les médias titulaires ont le droit de dire ce qui est vrai, ce qui est possible, et ce qui est moral. Ce mensonge a un nom familier. On l’appelle socialisme quand il parle de justice. On l’appelle « consensus » quand il parle de science. On l’appelle « protection » quand il parle de parole. Dans tous les cas, le mécanisme est le même : une caste se place entre les gens et la réalité, puis vend cette place comme un service public. Musk casse ça. Il a prouvé qu’on pouvait envoyer des fusées sans Gosplan. Construire des voitures sans la bénédiction de Detroit. Relier un village, un front ou un hôpital depuis l’orbite, sans demander l’autorisation d’un ministère. Il a racheté la place publique et arraché le monopole de ceux qui décidaient qui avait le droit de parler. Voilà pourquoi les médias mainstream, comme une bête à l’agonie, vont tout tenter. Pas parce qu’ils ont découvert un secret. Parce que l’homme échappe à tous leurs leviers. On ne l’achète pas avec des recettes publicitaires. On ne le recadre pas avec un cycle de une. On ne le débranche pas discrètement. À ce niveau de puissance, c’est probablement l’homme le plus clean du monde : il a mis sa propre fortune en jeu, il n’a pas besoin de leur permission, et il n’a pas construit sa position en capturant l’État. Ils diront nazi. Ils diront fou. Ils diront dangereux pour la démocratie. Ils ressortiront le même extrait, le même historien du bon camp, la même indécence morale. Ce n’est pas de l’information. C’est un réflexe de survie. Il faut que les Français le sachent avant que la vague n’arrive. Elon Musk ne se bat pas pour un parti. Il se bat pour que le peuple puisse regarder la machine en face, construire sans demander pardon, et cesser de déléguer sa tête à ceux qui vivent de la peur et du récit. La vérité est simple. Un bâtisseur qui ouvre le jeu fait plus pour les gens qu’une rédaction qui recycle la calomnie. Transmets ça. Les mois qui viennent vont être bruyants. Le signal, lui, ne changera pas. #ElonMusk #Liberté #Vérité
A Palestinian official declared that the legislative elections scheduled for November 28 in the Palestinian territories cannot ultimately take place, emphasizing the need for national dialogue to establish a consensus on their organization. (translated)
Replying to SNP, Andy Burnham has again misrepresented the Good Friday Agreement: “Clear consensus” invents artificial supermajority threshold; GFA requires a simple majority (50%+1) The SoS has a binding duty: Annex A states they ‘shall’ direct a vote, not merely “consider” it #GoodFridayAgreement #AndyBurnham #Referendum #GB #IE
“Consensus Is Not an Argument “Historians agree that Nazism was right-wing” is not an argument. It is intellectual outsourcing: replacing evidence with the number of authorities who repeat the same conclusion. Ideologies require criteria. You cannot cherry-pick political characteristics, notice that they fit your preferred category, and then pretend the classification has been demonstrated—especially when virtually every item on the list exists on both sides. Nationalism? Both. Militarism? Both. Protectionism? Both. State intervention? Both. Economic planning? Both. Collectivism? Both. Welfare policy? Both. Authoritarianism? Neither side has a monopoly. So what actually makes Nazism “right-wing”? The economic argument collapses even faster. Nazi Germany heavily directed its economy. So did the United States and Britain during the same period of war preparation and total war. If state direction proves socialism, then your criterion suddenly makes the Allies socialist too. If it doesn’t, stop using it selectively to classify Nazism. You cannot rig the test and then celebrate the result. And here is the inconvenient part: if economic policy cannot independently resolve the question, then the Nazis’ own ideological claims cannot simply be dismissed because they are inconvenient. Their party was literally called the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, and they repeatedly described their movement as socialist. No, self-description does not automatically make them socialist. Political movements can lie. But rejecting their description requires an actual criterion demonstrating why it was false. “Because historians say so” is not a criterion. It is an evasion. The deeper problem is that modern political taxonomy often works backwards: decide the label first, then curate the evidence until the label looks inevitable. That is not historical analysis. It is circular reasoning wearing an academic costume. So ask the question that actually matters: was Nazism committed to individual liberty—or to subordinating the individual to the collective, the state, and the nation? If Nazism is right-wing, prove it from coherent ideological principles” - ChatGPT
🇪🇺 Regional figures confirm that #Eurozone Q2 GDP is set to be revised upward, comfortably beating expectations. ➡ Bloomberg consensus (QoQ): +0.4%e v +0.4% latest estimate (v 0.0% in Q1). ⚠ Note 1: Distortion caused by Ireland will be even more significant, with GDP growth #Eurozone #GDP #Bloomberg #EU #IE
🇪🇺 🇮🇪 🇩🇪 #Weekahead | With Q2 GDP upward revisions in #Germany and #Ireland, #Eurozone Q2 GDP will be revised upward (likely ~0.6% with risks skewed to 0.7%). *Bloomberg consensus: +0.4%e v 0.0% in Q1 Irish Growth Topped 10% in Second Quarter After Sharp Upgrade - Bloomberg https://t.co/z1SkAknVxO #Weekahead #Germany #Ireland #EU #IE #DE
The stuff being pushed through in Dublin at these meetings by the EU - with no consensus of the people, no coverage, not even any real public knowledge - is grim and terrifying. It's going to endanger and empoverish so many for so long. Things are going to get hard and harder. #EU #DublinMeetings #PublicAwareness #IE #EU
China derails consensus at the G20 finance ministers' summit, opposing the wording contained in the statement agreed upon by the United States and other countries that asked (translated)
Faced with global warming, we need to find measures that reach a consensus. For me, it is not a "new Carbon Tax" as Dominique de Villepin would like: it is housing. It will be a win for people's bills, a win for our sovereignty. (translated)
During a meeting of the G20 finance ministers, a consensus was reached to ensure free and safe navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, except for a rejection from China regarding the agreement. (translated)
