And?

I'm all in favour of investigations into the cause of the incident and the points you raise about it are mostly valid but it's a single example of an animal in a road being killed by an automotive; this is happening constantly with human drivers and isn't even close to being considered news. If the car did something especially concerning or there was a statistical trend that was concerning about animal fatalities and self-driving cars then fine, but short of that this kind of exceptional treatment of events like this is unhelpful.

If you ask for a standard baking recipe it'll almost certainly be fine as it'll just rip off the content from GoodFood or some other site. Ultimately if the recipe it produces isn't dangerous and the person asking is happy with the end result then it was a good output. What's the alternative? Assume that if you search for a recipe or use a recipe book then there's 0% chance the recipe won't be underwhelming?

I'm on the cynical side of just how capable AI is but IMO people like you are being equally extreme in overstating the issues. At a minimum it can be useful as a incremental improvement on regular search, outlining what you want to know and asking for trusted resources to validate results. My experience is the use goes beyond that, although it's a long way from the life changing tool that current vendors like to claim thus far.

That sums up how I talk about it with people generating code. If you can understand what you are asking it to do for you and check it, or have really robust tests and output specifications, then it's helpful. Without those you're basically playing roulette and hoping it doesn't introduce security, accuracy, or performance problems.

We do that for work passwords; there are various tools that can compare hashed passwords against hashes of known compromised passwords and flag accounts. We run these and then get anyone who's password is flagged to reset it. It wouldn't be hard to add it as a signup test on a website either.

Because contrary to the views of a lot of self-centered Americans the rest of the world doesn't have to obey your laws...

No, that's assuming (as they literally make clear in their post) that Amazon want the connection to go to their largest east coast datacenter rather than bum fuck nowhere like you're suggesting.

The reason they aren't suing Drake is pretty obvious. 1. They don't have a contractual relationship with Drake, they do with Spotify and 2. It's a lot easier to prove there is manipulation than it is to prove who was behind the manipulation. My guess is that if they win it isn't unlikely Spotify may go after Drake or restrict payment to him; I suspect they've done nothing up to now because why publicise that your platform is being gamed to shortchange other artists if you don't have to.

There absolutely are influencers who are providing mdeical, financial etc advice and I haven't seen any case law to support the idea that you can give advice as an influencer and use being an 'entertainer' as a defence. There have been cases in the UK where people giving financial advice on social media have been fined for it.

And you can bet they wouldn't certify anyone who disagreed with them as an expert...

I think there's a reasonable case to be made that the collateral, people who can't post even though they are experts due to not being able to evidence it, is a price worth paying because they're drowned out by people making shit up pretending to be experts.

I'd prefer solutions that penalise people for posting false information vs only allowing vetted authorities to post in the first place; although that still has the issue with who decides what is false.

I don't think that's a fair line to draw. There were perfectly viable delivery services available before Doordash etc where restaurants organised delivery themselves. It's perfectly reasonable to be frustrated that DoorDash etc seem to have managed to somehow increase prices, reduce quality, and even then manage to lose money.

SImple answers to others problems are often stupid answers. If half of customers now order delivery then the most likely scenario is that you will get about half as many sit-down customers as you used to (potentially a bit more if you have local loyal customers who will choose to have a sit down meal at your restaurant even though they'd prefer delivery). Most restaurants can't survive a large sustained fall in customer numbers so feel they have to offer delivery to capture a share of that market.

To be fair, a scenario where the driver is dead or otherwise incapacitated isn't exactly impossible either and probably reduces the chance of the current regulated warning deployment from happening...

Thank you for providing one of the few valuable posts here where someone has actually analysed what has been said vs just jumping to a conclusion based on their opinion of regulation good/bad and freestyling from there.