Then mandate a giant spike in the middle of the steering wheel and no seatbelts. Then watch how safely people will drive. Yes, that's a joke, but I've noticed that on the rare occasions I forget my bike helmet, I ride a lot more slowly.

The company management is pointing the finger at workers, and they're right to, just as long as they point the finger at themselves too.

These kinds of problems start at the top. If management demands workers do the impossible (or at least the wildly implausible), they know that reports of success are going to be fraudulent. The question is, are they goign to get away with it?

I really think the main argument *for* carbon offsets is that it *potentially* can harness free market mechamism to *efficiently* reduce emissions. This would be in contrast to a pure government mandate that everyone cut their emissions by some percent. The problem is that the marginal costs for industry X might be prohibitive; on the other hand industry Y could easily cut more. So why not have X pay Y to cut more than required? This *internalizes* the external benefits of extra reductions for Y.

Of course, it's very easy to screw this up, starting with letting people get away with fraud. But if you allow fraud in *any* market, that undermines the efficiency of the market. If you are going to get the entire economy to reduce emissions by some set goal, you need some mechanism to distribute those reductions so they're made where it's most efficient, and financial efficiency is one thing the free market excels at.

When the Constitution was written it inconceivable to have a communications platform like Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, etc.

Newspapers and book publishers existed when the Constitution was written. Neither is under any obligation to print your letter to the editor or book, respectively.

So let me get this straight. If there were *real* carbon offset credits, that would in your view be *just as dishonest* as fraudulent ones?

how?

Yeah. While GPT4 and Claude are extemely impressive, I'm more interested in things I can run myself, rather than shitty cloud services that shuttle all my private data off to some anonymous GPU cloud for disection.

And so far , I've been rather impressed with the likes of Mistral and llama2. Obviously they arent going to win any battle of intellects agains the trillion parameter behemoths. But they still work fine enough for the kind of tasks I'm interested in.

Theres no concern at all for blood transfusions, breast feeding infants or sexual relations, because its pseudoscientific gibberish with no concievable mechanism for it to be true coupled with know known observed instances of it ever be true. Its the fever dreams of paranoid people who never finished highschool.

Yes you might shit out a few acid denatured proteins. But it *doesnt mean anything*. You shit out proteins all day. And that isn't "Shedding".

Shedding is when the body expels dead (and sometimes alive) viruses. That is literally impossible.

Last I saw it was when it first came out , and there where ultra right wing dudes demanding it answer whether there are two genders or not. It was replying by calling them idiots in highly creative ways.

I found it a rather amusing spectacle watching maga fools losing arguments to a chatbot designed to agree with them.

Considering how drenched twitter now is with conspiracy theories and things like antivaxers spamming the site with nonsense about how if you know a vaccinated person you'lll get sick from "shedding" (mRNA doesn't "shed" but mere facts never stopped those crowd) and could catch "turbo cancer". Its an absolute wasteland of disinformation and bots nowdays, and they want to train AI on *that*?

Enlighten me as to which union you are speaking of.

Modern cars are made by machines, not people. They haven't been made by hand in decades.

Perhaps you were unaware that for the past few decades, cars are made mostly by machines.... sure there is the wear and tear on the robots that build them and their maintenance, but this is a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of the vehicles themselves.

I think the reason why all weapons were not banned in space and why it was vetoed is simply because the definition of "weapon" is too broad, and the mere act of enabling any sort of communication with countries you might happen to be at war with can be interpreted as a "weapon" from that nation's point of view. WMD, however, is quite unambiguous.

I have no facts to back up this opinion... it is just my own personally held belief. If someone has some cold hard facts to refute it, I'm open to the debate.

The genie was already out of the bottle on that one... by the time the space treaty came into effect in 1967, there were already nukes on earth... but there weren't nukes in space... the idea was to nip it in the bud before it became an issue, and it it hadn't been for that treaty there would have been nukes in space before the end of that decade.

The best option is that Putin is somehow brought out of power as soon as possible and held directly accountable for his actions.

Think about it for a second... if someone just goes and kills the guy, then he doesn't have to live with the consequences of his own actions....sure, he's dead, and death may or may not be an effective deterrent from someone doing likewise in the future...

But meanwhile, Putin himself will be rendered completely free of all responsibility for everything he has done. Whoever succeeds him will have to bear the consequences in this world. How is that fair?