Not only does Section 230 of the CDA have nothing to do with this case and vice versa, but it hasn't erradicated [sic] corporate responsibility. That's what corporations are for.

But how will they do the red scare when they've already done better Russian than Democrat?

And probably with milk, which has its own sugar.

All we know is that sugar isn't the only problem.

Without studying what they're actually eating we don't know if they're replacing it with some other processed carbohydrate, from which sugar differs little from a dietary standpoint.

Charging efficiency varies with rate, but you are ostensibly also only charging as much as necessary to get the vehicle to the next charging point.

It probably isn't legal somewhere, but in general not much is lost because you can easily get free replacements so it's difficult to argue substantial damages.

Check your units, friend. I went so far as to make the conversion for you.

I wasn't sold until I read this line.

Even if nobody had to earn their money, we could still use it as a means of ensuring that wealth was fairly distributed. Or, you know, the opposite of course.

I think his argument is that we don't know why the human mind exists, because we haven't fully explained how the brain works (in part because we haven't fully explained how physics works, but also for lots of other reasons like having an incomplete picture of even what the mechanisms in the brain are, let alone what the physics of them is) and until we do then we should keep our minds open to possibilities.

But on the other hand, you can go any distance down that rabbit hole and only the parts where we don't understand enough about the function of the brain or exactly what is consciousness are the parts worth arguing about in this context because they are sufficient. There's a lot we don't understand about how the brain works physically, and there's also a lot we don't have well defined about what it's even doing. We're not really prepared to decide what is or isn't intelligent.

Having Wacom is worth some significant money, so as long as it's a fully compatible Wacom digitizer that automatically makes this device worth quite a bit more than it would have been otherwise. This is especially true if it's their combo wacom+10 points touch setup. I'm not sure that with its processor this device it merits $700, it's a much better argument if it's the full Wacom.

I'm skeptical about the resolution, though. It is decent, but at this size I think it's going to fall short of expectations for a monochrome-only display. I'd like to have seen at least 300 ppi if it's going to be playing sketch pad.

Humanure is exactly the right answer to this problem, although today it would be compromised by those pharmaceuticals so stable that the majority of them pass through the body unprocessed. This returns micronutrients necessary for life to fields where they can become part of foods again. We make some rough effort at this with sewage sludge, but that's often toxic to some degree for multiple reasons (processing just doesn't handle everything — the left over pharmaceuticals make an appearance here as well, along with all of the other things people put down their drains) so it's still not as good as just composting turds without flushing them.

This is a syllogism. We object to them because they add nothing to the conversation. In this case, it actually describes the problem we're talking about, so it only proves that you understand the topic of discussion.

One might argue, and this one is, that our goal should be to determine how we can reasonably both reduce and even limit the suffering. That is to say, there is a certain line we should agree we will not cross any time it can be avoided, and another line which we should at least strive for, and in my opinion we are failing on both counts. If we cannot agree to care for one another at the most basic level which is necessary for human life and ideally even coexistence, then how can we expect to agree on anything?

Noted Nazi sympathizer Henry Ford may have realized that, but he also thought he could help reshape society in his own image. Also, TPTB don't seem to realize that now. Wages haven't kept up with the cost of living for decades, let alone worker productivity.

The people at the top of the ziggurat believe that it's undesirable to have so many humans. As part of their own creation myth, they believe that the primary thing that's special about themselves is that they show up every day and apply themselves in a constructive way. Hence the rich guy in the news now for trying to prove that and winding up with health problems and abandoning the experiment instead. Who succeeds is much more a factor of who is lucky, as the most reliable predictor of economic success is the economic success of the parents, and we don't choose them.

That we still need a vast variety of humans to have a creative and developing future won't deter them from trying to depopulate us. They don't understand why that don't work specifically because understanding why it won't would require that they understand that they are special primarily in starting position on the board, and not in something inherent to them.

Becoming the biggest welfare state is the only viable goal for a society which is becoming ever more automated, which is the obvious outcome of ever greater technological development. You will always need smart people to solve problems, unless AGI is a) possible and b) malevolent, in which case it takes over and wipes us out as inconvenient. But again, that's not a viable goal.

As the computers get better, the value of having human workers do anything decreases until you actively don't want them to be involved because the machines have exceeded their capabilities, and the humans are just squishy meatbags which might get in the machines' way...