The drone strikes thing is a bad example. If he didn't touch it, individual combat units could use drones with impunity. He required drone strikes to be approved by his office.
Tell me if you had the choice between sending in boots to kill a guy, or drone strike, would you really ever risk your guys getting shot?
He added red tape, the minimum thing he could do. I'll agree with criticism that he did the bare minimum, but all these comments about this frame it like he was horny for drones. That's reductive and misleading.
Ok lol let's second guess the guy's teenage decision making when he's already stated it wasn't optimal
Like, this "seemed" like the best thing to do. An essay about how this dude was wrong 16 years ago isn't interesting.
You have no idea where he lived, or what was going on, it might be in his neighborhood there was a Bitcoin ATM, or check cashing places cashed to BTC or something. He might have had a wet dream about BTC and that solidified his decision. It doesn't matter.
If it doesn't have real revenue, it can't pay for it's carbon footprint and will/should be regulated.
If there's no known way to prevent these models from regurgitating copywrited works if they are trained on those works, how will it not be regulated that way?
Like I said, the way it's driven now. It could be done differently.
You didn't just punch him in the mouth?