Will it work? Perhaps. Needs to be tested.

The job is well paid hell. Too much stress. But part of that is excess overtime. If we can hire enough people the job could become better, if less paid due to less overtime.

Evil often does this. They get caught and say they did not mean to do this evil act, it was just a mistake.

After they avoid legal consequences they then usually try to claim it was not that big a mistake.

The problem is that doing something by mistake does not mean it is not a crime. There is a reason why manslaughter/negligent homicide is still a crime.

I am willing to forgive Zuckerberg - after he announces he has fired his captain and the communication officer.

You have failed to understand what I am saying. Let me clarify.

I understand that the point of the Agents is to do things outside the sandbox. I am saying that doing this is an incredibly STUPID thing to do and that no one should attempt to do it.

You have misunderstood my argument. I am not talking about the current legal framework. I am talking about an obvious defect in the current legal framework.

Points:
1) Agents routinely violate the law. This has become obvious.
2) Before point one it was reasonable for us to let people have agents.
3) Now that point 1 has become obvious only an incompetent government would allow software that routinely breaks the law to be available. It would be similar to letting a car manufacturer create a car that spontaneously decides to accelerate to 160 mph.
4) Just as we would immediately outlaw a car that routinely and uncontrollably breaks the law, we need to do the same for AI agents. We need to CHANGE the current legal framework so that:
5) We must outlaw the use of AI agents out of their sandbox because the risk of them committing major felonies on their own is too high.

To summarize my point: Just because some genius creates a new idea and thinks it can do wonderful things does not mean we can ignore obvious and MAJOR ethical and legal problems with it. We should outlaw ANY technology that has such major and critical risks of felonies.

Look, I can see allowing an AI to do things in it's own sandbox.

But when you allow an AI out of the secure environment it will commit crimes. This is no longer a question, it is a proven fact, multiple times.

So if you have an AI agent and it breaks the law, then YOU are breaking the law. The only way to stop this is to outlaw AI Agents - or to arrest the people whose AI breaks the law.

Otherwise all sociopaths will get AI agents and use it as a defense. Owning an AI agent is no different than owning a meth lab. We should not need to prove that you intended to break the law, just having it happen is enough.

Keep your AI locked up inside your computer, do not let it interact with the real world the way people do because it will commit crimes. You ARE responsible for what it does, even if you are just an idiot that likes AI and does not understand the dangers you are inflicting on the rest of the world.

Joe, I need a full background for me under the name "Ronald Rump". Make it seem like I am a billionaire that made my money from hotels and casinos. Oh, and make Vana seem like she is my ex-wife and give Melody a background of slavic model that I married late in life. Countess can pretend to be my daughter.

Option 1 was to get rid of the cameras. This was a choose one solution, not do it all.

They would still have the cameras and be capable of using them WHERE APPROPRIATE. The idea was to limit the bad uses without preventing the supposed good uses.

1) Do not give the police access to a system that clearly invades privacy of the innocent far too often.

2) Charge the police $1,000 per use of said system with all the money used to pay for legal aid to the accused.

3) Set it up to automatically inform the people that were tracked exactly 7 days after the cops tracked them.

Any of these methods will solve the problem, but the police will never accept any of these clear solutions.

Life Insurance is all about betting on death. The standard Life Insurance is a bet by the corporations that you will live long and pay many premiums. This means when you buy life insurance you are betting you will die quickly.

When Life Insurance gets re-insurance they are in fact betting you will die. Same when a business gets life insurance on 'key employees'.

Then there is a whole business called 'viatical settlements' where you buy life insurance on another person. This was a big deal when AIDS appeared and people did things like give money to the AIDS patients and take out a Viatical insurance on them. This ended badly when anti-viral medication started working on AIDS patients.

The idea on betting on people's death may be disgusting to some, but done ethically it can be an important way to handle risk.

While the plutocrats destroying capitalism are having orgasms about changing the rule to let people with 55% market control merge, wait till the Democrats get back in power.

Suddenly 39% will not be enough and the new FCC will demand that no mergers if they even have 31% of market controlled.

This kind of statement reminds me of this litrpg novel I read.

The main character was hired at one point to ride on and do safety tests on a rollercoaster... ...built by goblins. It had a line in it about how they had to make sure it satisfied all goblin safety regulations.

For amusement rides, the goblins' safety regulations had a clear and thoroughly enforced "at least 95% must survive" regulation.

If you are wondering, this particular ride failed the safety tests.

Tesla is wrong, humans use other senses than sight.

We feel the car, letting us know when the road is rough. If you only do that to tell when you cross a lane where they have raised pavement markers (reflective or not), that alone is something just sight cannot do.

In addition, cars have horns for a reason - we use our ears as well. Finally if you smell burning, you know something is wrong. Whether it is burnt tires or an engine with serious problems, scent is also used.

I am pretty sure that taste is the only sense we do not use while driving. If I am wrong about taste, please do NOT correct me in the comments below, I would rather remain ignorant.

Before they try to stop routers from China intercepting data, perhaps they should stop Microsoft from just GIVING it to China.

https://www.propublica.org/art...

There is an old technique - the guaranteed winner by random chance:

You get 32 stock brokers. On Monday the boss picks 2 stocks. 16 say that stock is going up, 16 say down, and they each call 100 people and give their prediction. That evening the 16 that were 'right' call their 100 back and brag. Tuesday they repeat only with 8 on each side. Repeat on Wednesday with 4 winners. Thursday they have 2 winners. Friday they have 1 winner that brags to his 100 prospects:

"Look, I happened to predict the winner every day this week. I can not guarantee that will happen every day, but if you want to hear my predictions next Monday, I need you to move your account to my firm."

And the gullible fool does it, not knowing that mathematically the predictions were guaranteed to work on 1 of the 32 brokers. Just math, not competence.

Betting on AI was not some super genius move - especially using margin. All it involved was taking the popular opinion and going all in. While it worked you look like a genius. When it fails, you lose everything.

He just played the odds and won for a while. But the math was never going to have him win forever.

10% drop is large but not horrific. This is basically normal variation, not something real.

Apple is one of the "FANG" stocks - Facebook, Apple Netflix, Google. They are huge companies that have had major gains as compared to most other stocks. Over time some people just bought those stocks.

This drove the prices of their stock up a lot from greedy people The current drop is just undoing some excess greed, not really that big a deal.

On 7/31/2026, it hit a low of 300. Before 7/31/2026,. the last time Apple was at 300 was 7/2/2026

In other words, it gave up less than a month of gains.

This is not that big a deal - yet. I would be shocked if it dropped to 272. Why? Because that is just below the previous 'low point' on 6/25/26. Going below that number not only indicates a significant drop, but it established a trend of new lows being less than the last lows.