How is that relevant for those drivers being charged for road wear in another country? Are the UK going to kick part of the collected money to these other countries?

What the UK needs is a tax on the members of government (not to be passed on to the rest of the country) which scales with the number of taxes on the books.

You're free to make games with AI - others are free to tag them - yet others are free to use the tags to inform their buying choices.

Presumably you believe in these freedoms?

What 'makes no sense' is trying to cast a 'good for you' into a 'good for everyone - for all time' or trying to go against customer desires.

They really have little choice but to turn the country into a police state when confidence that they are even human is so low.

I really want you to explain why you know better than the MIT researchers quoted in the summary who determined you are wrong. Most jobs can't be replaced by current LLM, that's what they found. Why do you disagree with it?

I said this:

You responded by saying rocks can think. Strong example of cognitive bias.

You're wrong here, and you refuse to cure your ignorance.

ok look. "Thinking" is defined with extreme mathematical rigor. It's not completely defined, but we can definitely rule some things out.

Of course, I don't have time to explain all the math here, so as an example I used the fact that rocks don't think. However, some people like you idiotically tried to argue that rocks do think. You are a moron! Why are you even arguing that??? Get off the internet for a while.

I suspect that it's more symptom than cause, and probably not at the top of the list of causes; but I cannot overstate how much I loathe the hyperbolic use of the term 'unthinkable' in these sorts of situations. Both because it's false; and because it often acquires a sort of implicitly exculpatory implication that is entirely undeserved.

Not only is it 'thinkable'; having something awful happen when you perform a procedure that requires longterm hardcore immunosuppression and then let them follow through the cracks is trivially predictable. It's the expected behavior. Successfully reconnecting a whole ton of little blood vessels and nerves is fairly exotic medicine; predicting that thing will go poorly without substantial follow-up is trivial even by washout premed standards.

This isn't to say that it isn't ghastly, or that I could imagine being in that position; but 'unthinkable' is closer to being a claim of unpredictability or unknowability; which is wholly unwarranted. None of this was unthinkable; but nobody really cared to check or wanted to know all that much.

No doubt, but the grownups aren't talking about replacing the fuel bill with a per mil charge, we're talking about replacing the fuel tax>/em>. California has the highest gas tax in the US, at 61.2 cents per gallon. I drive about 10,000 miles a year. The gas tax comes out to a bit less than $250/year at 25 mpg. 3 cents per mile would be $300/year, or higher (though not a lot higher).

In the rest of the country - by definition, our gas tax being the highest - the difference will be more.

Note that the gas tax in California (like most states) does not go to CalTrans, responsible for maintaining highways, it goes into the general fund, for whatever graft and corruption on the the menu this week. The same would be true of any per mile tax on EVs.

As for replacing the fuel bill, last time I calculated it, the cost of electricity here to charge a typical EV would also cost more than the gasoline, and electricity has gone up since then (quite a bit this year), where gas goes up and down, but has hovered between $4-5/gallon for years.

Cars already have odometers which record and show mileage, they already have annual inspections where the value from the odometer is checked and recorded and there are already legal penalties for tampering with the odometer. It would be trivial to pull that data out of the existing database and levy taxes on the vehicle owner based on that.

You don't need a GPS, cars already record how many miles they travel.

Society must acknowledge that sharing of info should be encouraged, and be thankful that technology has made sharing incredibly easy. Need to work harder on systems that can fairly compensate producers while encouraging sharing, not continue to base compensation on the restriction of sharing. Especially not to the point of outlawing sharing and wasting resources enforcing that and causing still more waste of lives that have to spend ruinously to fight to defend themselves from the legal mess.

One thing that makes this issue most intractable is that the organs who report on it are thoroughly convinced that sharing is contrary to their own interests. How is the public to hear unbiased reporting on this matter when no one with a metaphorical megaphone will give one?

Make more what? Dragon capsules? Currently SpaceX has no plans to make any more dragons beyond the five they currently have. I believe the fifth capsule had its inaugural flight this year with the private Axiom-4 excursion. These dragon capsules are currently rated for just five flights each, but SpaceX and NASA are working to extend their certifications to 15 flights each. Currently the contract with SpaceX does not include additional missions that would have been flown by Boeing. While it's possible NASA could try to buy some more flights, I don't think they will. SpaceX has the falcon 9 pretty well booked, and their other resources are fixed on Starship. I'm not saying NASA "needs" the Starliner, though. Just that it's not a simple thing to substitute Dragon for Starliner.

Read the book, your degree program failed you.