we need aerosole based sun ray reflection and thus cooling to be done immediately, this is way beyond CO2 content in the atmosphere, which we will not get rid of even if we stop producing any and all new CO2 right now. It will take thousands of years for the existing CO2 to be reduced and burried by natural processes. There won't be any natural processes if we don't cool down the planet asap.

It wouldn't be news if you looked at their terms of service -- which you should. The ToS explicitly say they use a combination of automated systems, human review, and reports to identify and investigate violations of their usage terms, including violence, abuse, fraud, impersonation, disinformation, foreign influence campaigns , abusive sexual content, and academic dishonesty. This includes "anonymous" sessions that are saved for a minimum of 30 days. You have no expectation of privacy from the provider's compliance teams.

This is *absolutely* standard among the major online players. So why not use a local AI workstation with a couple of big-ass GPU cards in it to run the campaign? That's what they *should* have done. But the major online players like ChatGPT and Claude are much better at realistic content generation than the widely available local models you can run.

What they should have done is design and run the compaign on a local AI workstation, and used the local workstation to generate prompts they could feed into burner accounts on public services like ChatGPT and Claude. But they got lazy and ran the *whole* operation in ChatGPT, right in plain fiew of the OpenAI compliance teams the ToS they evidently didn't read would have told them were there. They even did *performance reviews* in the same account.

Remember folks, these "spooks" are just mid-level paper-pushers in an opaque communist bureacuracy. You can never discount inertia in such an environment. Because this was something new, they might even have had trouble getting the purchase of some high end GPUs approved.

How about verification that people in government are not pedophiles? Until governments can be cleaned out of pedophiles can we stop axcepting any and all requirements from them?

I don't hate Trump. I pity him. No matter how much shit he slaps his name on, it won't fill the hole is daddy left in him. But people that damaged shouldn't be let anywhere near power.

Well, no. It's true you can't buy books for the purposes of scanning them *and then making them available online* (Hachette v. Internet Archive). Scanning them for AI training is not settled law in every Federal District, although in at least one that has been ruled transformative and therefore allowable (Bartz v Anthropic, Northern District of California).

Anthropic famously bought a lot of copyrighted books and scanned them to ingest into its model training corpus. Arguably they aren't violating copyright because what they are doing is *transformative* -- turning words into a statistical map of word associations.

But what China is doing by inferring the structure of that map doesn't touch on *any* kind of intellectual property of Anthropics. Sure, the map is a trade secret, but they've exposed that trade secret through their public interface. It's not human created so it's not copyrightable. Even if that map were patentable, which it probably isn't, it's not patented.

The worst you can say is that China is violating the service's terms of service, which may have no legal force there.

As a lifelong cyclist, I agree in principle. The problem is over the last seventy-five years we have rearchitected the very geographic fabric of society to make *solving* our transportation problems with bike and public transit impossible.

Before WW2, Dad would leave the apartment and walk or take a trolley to work (usually in the same city neighborhood) while Ma "kept house" -- managed cooking, clearning, childcare, and the family's community and social engagement. In the 1950s and 60s, instead of an apartment, it'd be a suburban house. Ma would drop Pa off at the kiss and ride.

Today Mom and Dad both have jobs they have to get to, usually in *different* suburban employment areas; they can locate to make the commute easy for one, but they keep changing jobs every couple of years while their long-term wealth is being put into a geographically fixed asset: their house. They are financially anchored to their house as their jobs move around the region.

Car-dependency is baked into the very fabric of society, in a way you can't fix with transportation policy or projects--not without decades of projects. But we have reached the limits of the car-dependency model; we can't fix traffic by adding marginal car capacity as has been repeatedly demonstrated by freeway projects that fail to fix traffic because we're in an equillibrium between commute times and job selection.

Transit and bike infrastructure won't fix this, but they *can* make marginal improvements in the traffic situation by taking cars off the road for the minority of people who can use these alternatives at this particular point in their lives. I think e-bikes are going to be key. I personally wouldn't consider a ten mile commute by bike on roads shared with cars a barrier to commuting by bike, but most people wouldn't attempt it. E-bikes on bike infrastructure can make a ten mile commute practical for *normal* people, and take a significant number of cars off congested roads. Public transit could help, but again in a marginal, opportunistic way. In Europe or the US Northeast where car-dependency was overlaid on existing dense urban fabrics, there's a lot of opportunity for major transit projects. But for American cities in the West which have *no* center of mass to build around, solving car-dependency is likely a Moon-shot level project.

when will justice be served upon putin and all of his murderous thugs? he murdered hundreds of thousands and not only in Ukraine. instead the likes of trump roll out the red carpet for him. Does this "justice" thing only work if the murderer is not a dictator?

Well, that's one hypothesis. However since they saw a significant difference in the population where the social media apps were removed, then if your hypothesis is true, the data would suggest that delivering the service as a native app rather than a web app must have some harmful effect in itself. An alternative hypothesis is that their application usage patterns changed when the apps were removed.

It's not altogether far fetched that web-delivered apps have a different psychological effect than native smartphone apps, because native smartphone apps have greater access to the system for tracking and notifications. Native apps also offer different features than their web versions. This is why I use Facebook via a browser, because the Facebook native app is insufferably intrusive, constantly trying to get your attention. It means, however, I can't use Facebook's chat function.

Says who that a company 'dumps externalities' on us? It pays for disposing of the clothes.

How about your old clothes, you are throwing it away, you are paying for the trash to be collected, are you dumping externalities? You are PAYING for this to be disposed of, so does a company, everything else is authoritarian nonsense.

what else does it mean? First of all just dealing with it is resource intensive and companies already do. Secondly why do you expect people to behave in a certain way just because you introduce some authoritarian law? You SHOULD expect them to solve the problem in a way that makes sense for them. If it made sense to donate the clothes they would have. There are already outlets, where older unsold clothes is shipped to be sold at a lower price. Once nobody buys stuff there, it has to be disposed of, it requires space and handling, it oozes money by just sitting there idly. The companies will invent a mechanism to achieve the same result as happens now, it will be more expensive, that is all. People route around the damage caused by governments every dat.

the hell you say. Are you breathing the air? Eating the food? Drinking the water? Do you need clothes, a house, a car, petrol, entertainment? You are a walking talking externality. Again, people already pay for disposing of stuff, if the price does not cover something, that is a different question, but that is not the point of my comment. Lets say the clothing company does cover the costs of disposal, what business is it of anyone that they make 10,000 tons of clothes and then end up disposing of 700 tons of it because it doesn't sell? Why is the same logic not applied to everything, how about a crop that is not collected and ends up being ploughed back into the field? Why are you throwing trash away? As to donating clothes - a company should be within its RIGHT to destroy products it did not sell or donate, whatever makes more sense for them, they created the stuff.

"fucking idiot", says a moron who cannot read a paragraph. I talked about disposal costs, there are always costs for disposing of stuff, that is not the point of the comment. To tell people they cannot make things and then destroy things (and dispose with costs) is authoritarian nonsense.

So this is private property and it was created with private money, jobs were paid for, taxes were paid, these THINGS belong to the people (company) who created it. None of it is government's business how they want to use it but now government says: these things you own, you cannot destroy it, you must keep it? For how long do these things need to be stored and where, who is going to be paying to store it?

It is the same thing is the government came to your house and said: you cannot throw away this garbage, though you paid for it, you paid the taxes, you don't need it. Now you must keep it in your house even though you paid the waste disposal fees.

This entire thing is as insane as anything any government does on any given day.

I imagine a company can run a 'sale' of these unsold items for a price of 1 cent per ton of goods sold, 'sell' it to a company that will then dispose of it. Freaking nuts, but it is not even the inconvenience of this that is bothersome, it is the fact that people think it is perfectly acceptable to tell anyone what to do with their own THINGS they made, their property they made.

If the question is how the items are destroyed, some environmental impacts, that would be one thing (some costs added to disposing of THINGS, there are always costs). But fundamentally this is so much worse, it is some authority commanding your life in a way that shouldn't be possible.