Minority rights is a problem for you?

Even if they do away with 230 moderation will be protected by the 1A. Section 230 just prevented a bunch of unnecessary litigation to prove that point.

Technically, yes, but geologists don't mean what people think they mean by that. Technically an ice age is a period in which parts of the Earth are permanently covered by ice sheets, and since the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets remain, the Holocene epoch is still an ice age, although that doesn't mean 1/3 of the continental US is covered with mile thick ice.

The technicality that the Holocene is part of the Quaternary ice age doesn't make warming a good thing. We are heading into conditions our species and certainly our global economy has never experienced before. While there is no doubt the species will survive, civilization as we know it is considerably less certain. I personally think there will be continuity of civilization, but adapting isn't going to be easy or pleasant.

It was actually worse than you describe. Much of the wheat was exported for sale to make it look like the Russian economy was doing well to the outside world and to fund the government.

Production was crap because they put non-farmers in charge of the farms, but they still produced enough to feed the Ukrainians. They just chose not to.

I have never seen a site that required a social media login and no site that would have such a requirement is important enough for me to create a social media account.

Gamers are the worst offenders about complying with any bullshit because they have confused their wants with needs. There is no game you NEED to play. This is why video game companies constantly abuse their users. The consumers are such addicts they will put up with anything to get their fix.

Octane has nothing to do with it; octane is just a rating of how prone a gasoline mixture is to pre-ignition. Higher octane gas is not fundamentally better than lower octane gas in any way except for it's tendency to knock in high-compression engines.

Gasoline formulated for California has to be formulated to produce less air pollution, for example by having a lower sulfur content and fewer smog-promoting alkene bonds. In other words gasoline refineries in California have to remove a lot of stuff from their product, and that removal adds to the price.

Because of what the thing said tells you about how the group works. Heroism is the simpleton's answer to complex problems: some hero will fix it. Institutionalizing heroism is normalizing systemic failure.

Oh really? You looked over the list of donors and noticed that it is full of people who lecture you all the time? What a coincidence!

(a) on the kind of problem and (b) the type of AI.

LLMs are are all the rage, but I will never trust an LLM except for things where the appearance of plausibility is the only thing that matters -- for example writing a story. But where accuracy matters I wouldn't trust an LLM more than I would a human whose total sum of knowledge and education came entirely from reading random Internet sources. This isn't to say LLMs aren't extremely useful tools, they absolutely are. But using this kind of generative AI responsibly for important tasks really calls for human operators with higher order critical thinking skills -- exactly the kind of skills that will become even rarer in a world where all entry-level mental grunt work has been taken over by machines.

There are other kinds of AI I'd be more inclined to trust like classification and regression trees. That's because CART produces a model that a human expert can examine and critique, both in general and in how the model has been applied to arrive at a particular conclusion. That said, I wouldn't just throw a training data set and have the algorithm spit out a decision tree and trust that tree. There's a lot of labor and thought and expertise that goes into making that kind of system work on a problem, which is probably why it's not as exciting as something that appears to magically answer all your questions.

The ability to critique the process by which a result was arrived at, and being able to verify that the process is anchored in underlying evidence -- those things are fundamental to generating answers that are trustworthy. It's the same reason why a scientific paper is more trustworthy than a political screed, but, sadly, is also far less accessible and ironically less persuasive.

Oh look, you're doing it again. It's like I pointed out that you had mud on your face and you said, "Oh yeah!?! Well look at this!" Then you proceeded to pick up a giant pile of shit and smear it all over your ugly mug.

You're good for some laughs, if nothing else.

In my state recreational marijuana is legal. The inconsistent application of marijuana possession laws was a major argument that swayed a lot of people who didn't like the idea of legalization.

14 years imprisonment for possession of 17 grams. Even under Russian law possessing this much cannabis would normally be punished with a small fine (roughly 100-300 dollars) and a suspended sentence. However they chose to prosecute this as drug *trafficking*, even though it's about 200 dollars worth of weed.

This is typical of Authoritarian regimes, to impose particularly harsh sentences individuals for political purposes under the guise of being "tough on crime". Tough it may be, but it's not the *rule of law*, in which laws are administered without favor or disfavor.

Technically, England, Wales, and Scotland are their own countries already.

I love the irony of writing a post in the style of an imbecile that accuses anyone using a particular computer to be a moron.

Bravo! Oh, wait, you were not joking. . .

The big problem with that idea is how to make it profitable. I think the only real way to make it work would be to federate it and then servers would be maintained/moderated by organizations with an interest in doing so (schools, scouts, churches, etc.). Of course, that would open the door to bad actors propping up servers for nefarious purposes.