Mod parent funny. This was the joke I was looking for, but Slashdot only reports the top mod. (Though this one currently has no funny mods.)

New idea about how to fix the moderation on Slashdot! Use AI. Can't be worse than the current moderation system, but AI is so trendy that maybe the latest owners (whoever they are, or perhaps incorrectly assuming someone still owns this mess) will eagerly embrace the AI.

So the idea would be for an AImod (AI moderator) to scan the posts and suggest the most likely moderation. It could even be done as part of the preview process to give posters 'objective feedback' about how their comment sounds. Perhaps even including candidate locations where a comment might fit better into the discussion and an easy move option? But the AI mod points should be easily countered by humans (which becomes training feedback for the AImod).

Another obvious joke would have been from the "What could possibly go wrong?" angle.

My actual feelings are mixed, but that got me to think of another possible angle for humor. The problem is that I don't know much about the current or even recent generations of video games, so I can't name the names of the games NOT to recruit from. I'm pretty sure there are games that involve lots of mayhem and Captain Chaos, Master of Mayhem, is NOT someone I want in charge of anything involving a plane (or bus or bicycle) that I might be riding.

Meta-angle involves the recurring brain worm in the form of that song about "Where have all the <category of people> gone? Long time passing..." In the case of Slashdot, it's the humorists of yore. Hopefully they've found a website with a humor-encouraging moderation system and all I need is that URL to make me happy. Or at least more amused?

Right, so in a sense the other comment is likely right. "Californian" stupidity, but in this case by too loose regulation and allowing profit motive and private companies into areas where it can be dangerous and lead to perverse incentives. Likely the opposite of the proposed accusations?

Everybody's health care has it's problems, but when I check for a comparison I get.

U.S. life expectancy is roughly 79.0 years, while the European Union average is higher at about 81.7 years

so even on average you'd be better off in the EU.

Correct - because it's below 1% and seems to be closer to zero and so not within the resolution of the chart.

Start from here https://ym.fi/en/waste; ensure you have a disciplined socially oriented and well educated population who believe in effective social action coordinated by the government, which itself is kept under reasonable control by the population, and you should find it's almost easy.

Doesn't seem to make sense unless they were putting in air in order to push out the landfill gas. The wiki article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

seems to suggest that would be extremely stupid.

You can also use cardboard boxes, especially the big ones, for weed suppression in no dig food gardening. That both uses up your compost to grow food and potentially uses a huge amount more cardboard. Of course you need land somewhere to do this, but you can probably rent some cheaply.

Depends where nospam007 is from. Finland was sending 45% of waste to landfill (still less than 50%, but that would be pedantry) in 2010. They now send less than 1%. The actual numbers for European Union landfilled waste are available and should be checked. It's pretty interesting and shows certain specific countries (Greece / Romania / Malta etc) still have a problem, but a bunch of other countries (Finland / Lithuania / Poland, for example) have improved massively.

EU regulations like this generally come in when most countries have already moved in that direction and most of the remainder have agreed they can already do it by the deadline. Already in May this year, sending of plastic waste outside the OECD (that would include the burning computers someone else mentioned) has been almost entirely banned with a complete ban on uncontrolled export coming in November.

Europe is not perfect, has plenty to learn from lots of places in the US, but is also actually solving real problems in big ways.

Commitments made by politicians who will be retired or dead by the deadline, don’t mean shit. So stop prancing around pretending they do. Results matter. Not promises. Making landfills illegal with no real solution, merely turns waste creators into criminals. Which you will likely tax to “fix”.

True, but burning things does tend to leave something reasonably chemically stable in the face of oxygen and unlikely to generate methane. If you only burn carefully separated specific waste with all recycling taken out you a) end up with much smaller landfills and b) should have less problems with those specific landfills.

Of course, there's a whole history of nasty toxins, like dioxins, from incinerators so you definitely have to do it carefully, at high temperature and in ways that are environmentally thought out, but that doesn't mean it's always the wrong thing to do, especially if you can get a decent amount of energy from waste that would otherwise just be dumped and decay.

You ask so rudely that my initial reaction was to ignore you, but you piqued my curiosity. Where did you see it? I thought it was just one of my personal peccadilloes. Or you're just referring to my comments here and possibly elsewhere?

The YOB loves his precious brand, so I strongly prefer not to use it. Makes me glad I'm only an amateur historian. In describing the reign of YOB I'm pert' shure they'll have to brand it.

YOB comes from YUGE Orange Buffoon. How many guesses do you want? Or you might prefer a different source word for the B?

I have noticed that there are many other euphemisms applied to the YOB and all things YOBbish. Context almost always suffices to clarify the reference.

What would happen if Oracle went down?

I guess they would be asset stripped and their software treated like VMWare is treated by Broadcom - basically only companies that got incompetently trapped would stay on it and they would have to pay massively more just to get much worse service. Oracle DB itself is going down for sure. Amazon can definitely migrate companies off that without huge problems. Oracle's business software can be replaced by SAS consulting and so on?

I guess that it's time for people that earn by supporting Oracle to start running.

That's of course correct. Data entry mistakes happen; the system should be designed to ensure that, when they do happen they don't place someone at risk of death.

That means that, for example, if an entry is made that says that "murder X is known to be driving car with registration Y" then the system checks that car with registration Y actually belongs to murderer X. If it doesn't then the system refuses to put out a bulletin without a warning to protect the actual owner of the car. Alternatively, for example the system should insist on getting a photograph of the murderer in the car and verifying the data.

We now had what in aviation is called a "near miss". Someone was almost killed by a bad data entry. In aviation, near misses are treated almost as if the actual accident had happened. By doing that, lessons get learned and systems get fixed. Flock is clearly not doing that, is deeply irresponsible and, if they persist in failing to learn from such failures should be banned from involvement in safety critical systems like the Flock cameras.

What is actually worrying is that there appears to be no recognition of the failure that flock had here. Flock is the only entity which can really act to change this situation. Flock should have had systems in place to avoid a near death scenario. Not only are flock's cameras broken, Flock's development process is broken. Furthermore, in the failure to recognize that an actual problem has happened, both Flocks *and* the Police forces maintenance and usage processes have failed and are also broken.

Not nearly as much as they have been reduced by the fact that the nuclear industry does not have to either a) get full insurance for the actual risks they are taking or b) cover the long term cost of maintaining (that word again) storage for their spent fuel.

It's precisely because the nuclear industry won't actually accept the risks from their own systems that it's absolutely correct that they should be subject to the onerous regulation and risk limitation that you are complaining about.