It's the computer.

More accurately, it's the power of the computer. It's too capable and it encourages students to doomscroll AI slop more then learn.

If I designed a school for education, it would literally be a better built Brother Geobook: Dirt cheap. Vastly under powered. black and white screen with optional backlight (preferably e-ink if the price was right to purposely keep screen refresh low to discourage videos) with a huge battery to get battery life measured in days instead of hours, and can only browse basic internet sites and email. It would have cloud connectivity for storage backup and the like, but just use a basic word processor, spreadsheet, presentation and notebook software. It would also have built in programming using either python or basic.

When I was in high school. I had a Ti-92 and later in college I had a Palm IIIc. I took all my notes on it did spreadsheets on it and programmed anything else I needed that it couldn't do on it. Saved a ton of paper and was easier to sort notes once I got home at my computer. Anything more powerful than that is basically overkill for learning and is all but guaranteed to suck kids focus from learning to playing.

It’s far more capable of spewing C-level bizspeak horseshit than it is at generating good code. Logic dictates the suits go first.

Now they want to hump the corpse, before building a resort on it. Fucking Ghouls.

I don't know, a bus or train all to myself seems more wasteful than the regular car.

It doesn't have to be perfect to still have an effect. Though yes, I'd argue that our current system is already good enough that for like 99% of the murders remaining, serious thought on the consequences did not occur. They thought they'd never be caught or even just didn't care in the heat of the moment.

Also, getting as specific as this crime isn't as necessary. If it deters somebody from murdering their fully adult spouse or even their drug dealer, good enough.

You’ve shifted my point into something I never argued.

Deterrence doesn’t require me personally to have almost committed murder. It’s a populationlevel effect observed across criminology: when the state reliably investigates and solves serious crimes, the expected cost of committing those crimes rises, and some fraction of wouldbe offenders change their behavior. That’s true even if neither you nor I were ever in that category.

You’re also treating “people who commit murder” as psychologically identical to “people who would never consider it,” which is exactly why personal anecdotes aren’t the right tool here. The question is whether solving murders—even old ones—reduces the incentive for planned, intentional killings. The evidence suggests it does.

So if you want to engage with what I actually said, the discussion is about deterrence, institutional legitimacy, and the social value of solving serious crimes—not whether I’ve ever personally been on the verge of stabbing someone.

I think that you're incorrect, that this WILL deter others, by giving the impression that we will catch them eventually if they commit murder.

There's also the idea that the criminal justice system in general pursuing crimes even if it takes a long time for the most serious ones, helps prevent people attempting vigilante justice.

when will justice be served upon putin and all of his murderous thugs? he murdered hundreds of thousands and not only in Ukraine. instead the likes of trump roll out the red carpet for him. Does this "justice" thing only work if the murderer is not a dictator?

I remember cases of them digging out old bacteria samples from things like old wells, a couple centuries old, not 13k, but still resistant to a raft of modern antibiotics, more than many modern strains.
The easiest explanation is that we got most of our antibiotics by examining molds and such, and it isn't like mold and bacteria haven't been fighting for millennia already. The bacteria probably just encountered something similar enough to the modern synthetic antibiotics and had to adapt.

Ouch, I can definitely see wanting to fix the color/colour thing for consistency. Reminds me of a game on steam with ONE broken achievement. Digging into it, the developer misspelled the achievement originally - then on the LAST update, fixed the spelling in the code, but not in the hook. one character edited in binary and the achievement popped.
But I'd think that an alias would work - allow people expecting color to spell it that way, but not break already developed apps that used the old colour.

This is not directly contradictory but certainly has some dissonance, wouldn't you say? Your second sentence here suggests that it is not, in fact, taken out of context... you just believe it's archaic.

The people who lived 200 years ago left you a mechanism to achieve that (constitutional amendment, the same process they used to guarantee the right to keep and bear arms).

The second amendment guarantees that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The purpose of that right is certainly because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, but the right clearly belongs to the people and not the states (which do not have rights, but rather have powers). The power of the states to form militias is already articulated in Article I, Section 8.

[citation needed]

The actual "modern reinterpretation" is that the second amendment is not an individual right. The first time the US Supreme Court referenced a right to bear arms was in its repugnant Dred Scott decision, where it held that black people could not be citizens because they would have the rights "to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

So, in 1857, we have a clearly established individual right to keep and bear arms (that, it being the antebellum US, we are denying to people because of their race. This is, thankfully, resolved by the ratification of the 14th amendment).

This is the most California thing I've ever read. Unconstitutional, unenforceable, and a massive increase in costs and bureaucracy; they hit the trifecta! I wonder if printer manufacturers that bake their own bread will be exempt once their checks to the governor's presidential campaign clear.

Incidentally, this is the kind of stupid shit that helps Trump and people like him get elected over and over.

Yes, homelessness is a bad thing. How is rent control supposed to eliminate it though? It tends to result in LESS housing available, which is the problem.
As for "handwave", you mistake me considering it mostly off-topic, and thus summarizing, not that I was "handwaving" it. Consider that I did mention that there are "other ways" to help keep rent prices and speculation under control. That makes your "current underregulated state" missing the target, because I already said that the current state sucks - and it isn't because of underregulation.

Since you insist, keeping in mind that this is still a summary - my slogan for solving housing problems, price and availability, would be "Build Build Build!"
If you build enough housing, then proper competition can take place, keeping rent prices down. With enough housing, it is available so that people aren't homeless. With enough housing, the speculators cannot drive the market, and a bubble is not created.

Keep in mind that I'm writing this off the cuff, a select listing of things places could do, in no particular order:
1. Cut down on the approval process. Some places have numerous committees that all need to be satisfied before construction can start or proceed. In some areas, construction can be halted by a single letter of complaint, until the committee involved meets and votes it as irrelevant or otherwise rejects it.
2. Cut down on non-safety requirements. Minimum size per unit, parking minimums, that sort of thing. Also get rid of zoning that limits housing density. In areas with housing shortages, denser is better.
3. Don't kill projects by requiring a percentage be "affordable". Building new housing tends to free up older housing to be "affordable". Rates I've seen vary between 30 and 60%, though it can take time, especially if the area is in a particularly extreme housing shortage.

Given that this is a new bill, it may not even make it out of committee. Sadly, there are people who elect idiots who engage in performative legislation. Whether that be anti-abortion legislation that was automatically unconstitutional until recently, or things like this. There are people who don't think. There are even worse attempts in history, like the move to legislatively define PI.
I mean, most of us here recognize that trying to have 3D printers recognize "gun parts" is a bit like trying to have current robots implement Asimov's 4 laws of robotics. Which always had the problem of requiring intelligence levels above humans themselves to actually implement. At which point the machine is smart enough to work their way around them.
That said - I believe, along with most economists, that rent control is a very bad policy. It destroys housing. Foreign real estate speculation can also be addressed without explicit blocks. There are other ways to improve rent prices and to keep real estate speculation down to a dull roar - foreign or not.

I mean, a functional firearm can be made with two pipes and a nail. That would actually be more powerful and longer lasting than most plastic 3D printed guns.