I'll second this â" I did mushrooms once many years ago, and it ranks as one of the most intense euphoric experiences I have ever had. It was truly life-changing.

I'm not sure I would call a 40% reduction in social media access "not working" â" no law is ever 100% effective, and there are reasons to think that even a modest reduction would be very helpful.

The most pernicious thing about social media for teens is that they feel like they have to participate even when they know it's not good for them (e.g., https://www.nber.org/papers/w3...). So cutting social media access in half sounds like a good start to making it feel at least optional so teens can opt out (or just not try as hard to circumvent restrictions) and get the benefits of not using social media, without as much FOMO.

Allow me to posit the following: we could very well be minding our own business but still strongly influence the rest of the world. For example, if a company wishes to do business in America -- the world's largest and most lucrative commercial market -- they must comply with US laws. This is no different than any other country. You may not like it, but that's how commercial business works, and it'd be no different if someone like North Korea had the market everyone wanted. You'd just be complaining about a different country.

Don't like it? Don't do business in the US and you're free to do whatever you want. You'll be excluding yourself from probably 70% of the available market, but you're free to make that choice.

Don't forget, your argument can be turned around quite easily: you could mind your own business and stop trying to tell the US how to do business according to your wants/needs. Funny how that works.

You're blissfully unaware of how national sovereignty works.

Good luck getting the US to accommodate an Interpol extradition request for 4chan and its personnel. There's no reason the US would agree to it since 4chan has violated no US law. So long as 4chan operates in the US exclusively and violates no US laws, they are effectively beyond the reach of the UK government. They could presumably nab some 4chan executive if they ever visited the UK, but all one has to do to avoid that is just not visit the UK.

This is how international legal disputes have been handled since the dawn of international legal disputes. Don't trust me, look it up, I'm sure chatgpt can fill you in.

It's about time they admitted to something that was obvious to almost everyone: nuclear power is the only effective path to carbon-free base load power generation. Wind and solar make good intermittent sources, but base load has to be utterly reliable regardless of whether the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. That's nuclear.

Getting rid of the nukes was a knee-jerk reaction, not a smart technological decision. The pivot to depending on oil and gas from a potential hostile neighbor just added to the madness.

He financed, produced, starred in, and distributed the film completely independent from the "Hollywood System". For God's sake, how much less "sucked in" can a person be and still have the means to do it at all???

Give the man some credit.

Yes, I work at an R1, and I do know that we have a lot more support in areas like this than many universities. But UoC absolutely does -- they have a research data management center with training, consultations, etc.:

"The user can do no wrong" is just as stupid as "everything is the user's fault" â" I'm not taking either of those positions. If you actually read what I wrote, you'll notice I am not blaming him for his IT skills or making a mistake with the software he was using. I'm blaming him for not meeting his responsibilities as a researcher, or taking advantage of the teams of people he had access to help him meet those responsibilities. He had a responsibility to preserve his data and working materials, he had the resources and support to do that, and he just failed to do it. Nobody else could have made him.

I'm not denying that there is a ton of terrible software out there â" I've been in the business long enough to see many horrors, and have written plenty of terrible interfaces myself. But this is like saying that a doctor who failed to wash their hands because of a shitty sink design wouldn't responsible for giving someone an infection with their dirty hands. Professionals with training and support have certain obligations, and they are responsible for the bad outcomes when they fail to meet them.

No, this is not some random user who was farting around with a chatbot. This was a researcher at a major research university. He has access to probably a dozen options for local and cloud storage that he could have used to backup his important data, and he chose not to. He has a grants office, and access to data management instruction and support. He chose not to use it or follow their advice.

I work at a US research university, and I know that we have several units on campus providing this kind of support, encouraging best practices at data organization and preservation. But there are always people who don't listen. It is 100% this guys fault. He had a responsibility to manage his data more responsibly, and resources at his disposal to help him do that. If he didn't bother and something bad happened, it's on him.

I really do think coding using AI tools is a bit faster, at least it seems that way to me. As most of the morning but lengthy work can be done faster by AI.

But I am also pretty sure it's VERY easy to rapidly incur technical debt, especially if you are telling AI to review its own work. Yeah it will do some stuff but who is to say post review fixes it's really better?

More than ever I think the right approach to coding with AI is to build up carefully crafted frameworks that are solid (maybe use AI to help but review and tests very carefully) then allow AI to build on top of solid fundamental structures that you know are solid, and do not let the AI modify those - maybe let it ask for feature requests.

I presume you're referring to the 2008 Chinese Milk Scandal? I'll point out this was something perpetrated by the Chinese industry, not American. It was knowingly covered up with the complicity of the Chinese government to prevent it from embarrassing the ongoing Olympics. Only when the scandal became impossible to cover up did the CCP take any action.

As of December 2025, San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie and former Mayor London Breed have both expressed praise for China and the relationship between San Francisco and Chinese cities.

as long as the topic is not controversial and political.

The problem is that the Wiki mods are VERY VERY biased. Not just a little. I have run into this personally just trying to make very simple edits. They would not accept simple facts that I had backup sources for.

This was just for movie credits for an actress that at some point had turned conservative...

So for anything political, Wikipide will be factually wrong, sometimes (or often) egregiously so.

But that's ok if it's only for political content right???

But there's the trouble you see. It affects what is political TO THEM in ways you cannot comprehend, so ANY page might be touched by the corruption of the Wikipedia moderator biases. I wouldn't think a simply actress filmography would be affected yet it was. No visitor other than that page would ever know it was inaccurate or incomplete.

So you can trust absolutely nothing from Wikipedia without extensive checking of what facts they refuse to list. Which makes the entire body of work garbage - I have not used it for years now.

A more interesting question I think is, does anyone own this AI actress?

That is to say - if a company took her likeness, and used other AI to make porn - could "her" agent sue them?

Or in other words, is a purely AI generated likeness even copyrightable, when technically no human made it?

the parent wasn't talking about "Cloudflare" and neither was i — we were talking about turnstile.