That's an exaggeration. You can give a LLM access to real things and they can use those real things to verify. I just flatly do not understand why they are not. It wouldn't make them infallible, but it would go a huge way towards improving the situation, and they are clearly not doing it. They could also use non-AI software tools to check up on the AI output. I'd bet that you could even use a plagiarism detection tool for this purpose with little to no modification, but I'd also bet this kind of tool already exists anyway.

It also shows that if the penalty is insufficient then they have no positive effect. A fine that people with a lot of money can easily afford is just a prohibition which only applies to the poor, with a license fee. Look to speeding tickets which scale with income for a fair model.

Yes

I'm not against a human doing it, I just don't get why they're not having the software do it, when it's feasible for it to do it.

What you're saying here is that no one should ever try to remedy the evils of the past.

That's stupid shit.

Fuck that stupid shit.

Debian used to just require old school Unix stuff plus Perl, which is pretty old school really.

Then they started requiring Python for some tools.

They just keep adding more requirements which bloat the base install. This is the opposite of the right direction.

The source code is the most important documentation about the source code.

Clearly this not even even being done by an automated tool, let alone a human. An LLM which is given access to a database of actual cases could reasonably be successful at checking whether the cased cited even exist which isn't being checked now!

Using non-local AI in any way in court filings which are supposed to be confidential until filed is glaring lack of professional conduct right up front. Allowing AI hallucinations to get in to your court paperwork even once is the same. They should lose their license for one year the first time, five years the second time, and permanently the third.

Slashdot is such a shithole

Cars occasionally run onto the sidewalk and hurt someone. More often than planes cause injury around airports I expect. Putting sidewalks right beside roads seems like a terrible idea. Why not have at least a buffer zone? Say, a football field (choose your type) of buffer?

Same for airports. Airports do have buffers around them, especially at the ends of runways. Very, very occasionally it isn't enough.

I'm not really sure what your point is. You are correct that racers frequently sail through all sorts of weather without damage. They do sometimes take damage though, the vast majority of which is due to trying to sail through weather as fast as possible.

A cargo ship would presumably sail through storms as fast as it could without risking damage.

My, we are an aggressively stupid dipshit today.

You do seem to be yes. Maybe time to take a break?

Ships scale up pretty predictably. No, they didn't build THE BIGGEST CARGO SHIP EVAH for their prototype. That would be pretty dumb.

This thread is talking about the ship speed. And the speed of a displacement hull is intimately linked to the length. As is the capacity, incidentally.

But half the time, in particular in regattas where you race against time, you end up in 11s and 12s and you go through.

And that's when you're racing. Remove the incentive to go fast and you're even safer.

Length, which is the relevant metric when you're considering the speed of a pure displacement hull.