Let's hope they're doing as much. The Chinese are unlikely to publicise when someone does pull a stunt like this...

The issue of who is responsible for AI mistakes is one that is being widely avoided. Once self driving cars are owned by people rather than companies, this will get even more difficult. In this case, should it be the health professional or the supplier of the AI or who? Sadly there are no easy answers, though the AI provider may be the correct solution.

I need regular prescription renewals. I apply online for the renewal, adding no information, and it happens. My doctor will have looked at the data about me, realised that there's no reason to refuse renewal, and granted it. Putting an AI in the system instead of the doctor makes perfect sense, not least because realistically the worst that can happen is a refusal requiring a human to take the decision, given that I've been on these meds for years already and there's no new data from me to give a reason to refuse. As the quote points out, the AI is likely to know more about the issues than the doctor.

What IS needed is a justification by the AI for its refusals, to allow the reviewer to decide if there's an actual reason.

Doctors make mistakes. AIs make mistakes. It is our irrational belief that humans will always be better at things that causes this problem.

Presumably the towns in other timelines exist for a good reason. Our timeline has missed that reason, so those locations have something that hasn't been exploited... ;)

The data shows that the people now a few years into their career are $8k a year better off than high school grads. Given that some of those careers will be earning silly amounts of money (doctors, lawyers, financial analysts using graduate level math), the outcome for those in more ordinary careers is likely to be marginal or negative overall.

Add in the fact that kids are making the decision to go or not on the basis of predictions of how things will be in the jobs market in five years time, the case for going to college, especially for the unmotivated and not particularly talented, looks somewhat tenuous. As someone who was machined into university because I was very good at Chemistry at high school but rapidly losing interest, I'm especially sceptical of kids going on to college because 'it's the obvious thing to do'.

The only ones in public service are those who've climbed up the ranks of the government.

Wow, sometimes the majority is right. I can only assume that you don't if you aren't captivated by the horrible experience of the father in this as well as by the terrifying influence of the manosphere that legitimated the boy's attack, at least in his mind. The third episode - the psychological examination is especially tear jerking.

Also Netflix. Reminiscent at times of 'The West Wing' - which is also back on Netflix and worth binging - 'The Diplomat' is a brilliant mixture of high drama and some brilliant comic moments.

Superb Netflix drama looking at how a 13yo boy ends up killing a female classmate. The performances are amazing; the kid got an Emmy etc. etc.

'It stood head and shoulders above every other programme made this year. The No 1 TV show of 2025 is, of course, the drama about 13-year-old Jamie Miller, accused of murdering a female classmate after being radicalised online. Stephen Graham, who starred in and co-wrote Adolescence with Jack Thorne is essentially the best actor we have, but there wasn’t a single duff performance from any of the other cast – be it the warm, weary humanity of Ashley Walters as the investigating police officer, Erin Doherty’s masterful turn as a psychologist or Owen Cooper, who blew Graham off the screen in his first ever TV performance, and who might just be the find of the decade. Add in the fact that every episode was filmed in a single shot, with footage including the camera literally taking off and flying through the sky, and it’s hard not to think that by every metric, Adolescence was genuinely excellent. It might just be perfect TV.'

https://www.theguardian.com/tv...

DO NOT MISS IT!!!

It might be an extreme one: unvaxxed Billy bursts into immuno-compromised Johnnie's otherwise sterile hospital room without a facemask because he's his best friend. Johnnie dies of measles and Billy had it at the time. Once the story started to roll, it would send the message.

Ideally an unvaccinated kid should not be allowed to attend public schools unless there is an overwhelming medical reason (known allergy in the child) for not being vaccinated. That particular boat seems to have left, so perhaps we need to see some cases where the parents of a child who is in the chain that leads to damage or death in another child is sued for the damages. This would only be just...

The African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa has caused massive corruption across the economy. As such it is a warning against 'socialism' - state owned monopolies are horrible, and such 'state ownership' is the policy of the ANC.

So you are arguing that 'unofficial churches' are not a religion? Really?

No - the state does not have the right to decide what is legitimate in religion.

Chinese Constitution:

'Article 36 Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief.

No State organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion.

The State protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the State.

Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.'

There is no requirement for religions to be 'official'.

http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/en...