Have you tried getting it to challenge Econ 101 assumptions?

Why do you believe those "AI detectors" are accurate? The past evaluations I've seen came to a different conclusion.

The people who built the submarine intentionally sailed it into international waters in order to get around the regulations that would prevent them from deploying an unsafe submersible like that. There were regulations in place to stop them. The point I was making was that it is trivial to get around those regulations because you can just load your shit up sail it out into international waters and suddenly blammo no regulations.

The solution would be additional regulations that prevented them from taking the unsafe submersible into international waters but nobody wants to do that because we often use workarounds like that to allow underpaid crews of sailors to go out in unsafe vessels to make money for billionaires or at least multi multi-millionaires...

I don't know why you would write something so obviously wrong. Did you just point chat GTP at my post and ask for a conservative themed reply? Or are you really that dedicated to being obviously wrong?

You're trying to boil down complex processes to a single sentence. That's the kind of thinking a 12 year old engages in. I'm not insulting you but I am calling you out. You are a full grown man and I think you know better.

There's a guy on YouTube that does these hilarious videos about how formula 1 teams cheat. So the formula One governing body will come up with all sorts of rules and the racing teams will do increasingly crazy shit to cheat those rules and win, oftentimes they will violate the Spirit of the rule without the letter of the rule and get away with it until next season.

That's why doing a simple straightforward regulatory framework like you suggest doesn't work and it doesn't exist. You are there have arbitrarily applied rules by a well ruling class or you don't really have any rules because they are child's Play to get around.

This is why the law is so stupidly complex and why we need lawyers to interpret it. It's like patching and operating system only the operating system is basic human reality so you can't just delete everything and start over.

I get the impulse to want to go back to a simpler time when everything was more straightforward but we just can't do that. We have to live in the world we live in.

Is because if something can save a billionaire half a plugged nickel they're going to do it. It's the same reason we worry about nuclear meltdowns. Yes all of these problems have long since been solved but it costs a bit of money to solve them. That's money that could go to making the next trillionaire.

America has tons of land we can put wind and solar farms on. It makes absolutely no sense to take the risk of our virtually untethered billionaire class skipping out on some maintenance or proper storage of nuclear waste in safe locations. We already know that we as a country are unwilling to curtail even an ounce of their power. There is a thread here about taxing Californian billionaires that is dominated by people convinced that if you tax people with more money than God then the next obvious thing is they're going to text you until you lose your house. That is actually in that thread.

I would block any attempt to deploy nuclear power in America outside of military applications because sooner or later American voters are going to do something stupid and put somebody stupid in charge and it's going to blow up in my face. I mean for fuck sakes we are about to give Iran $300 billion dollars cash and that's the best we can hope for out of the mess that the American voter put us in. And you want me to let those idiots decide how nuclear power gets regulated? Not a fucking chance. I would rather die from lung cancer breathing in toxic fumes from a coal fired plant.

Nuclear problems are social not technical and so us nerds like to pretend they don't exist because the last thing we want to think about are those filthy filthy humans getting in the way of our super cool technology

We're always trying to shift the blame to government but here I don't think there's anything the government could really do unless we want to start walking down ports. The guys who did this crap already knew what they were doing was unsafe and that any regulator that came across it would shut that shit down fast. So what they would do is they load everything up and then take it out to sea until they were far enough out that they were no longer covered by Canadian law.

At that point all you've got is maritime law which is pretty lax.

There are ways to stop this but it would require a lot more regulation and good luck getting that implemented with all the money and politics. It wouldn't just affect assholes like these it would impact every business on the planet. Now I would argue that's a good thing because we could certainly do with more regulation after 50 years of deregulation but again, money in politics.

Garbage regulations like IP create these behemoths. If you want freedom, stop regulating monopolies into existence.

Removing section 230 protections isn't the fix. Once you start opening that door there's no closing it. It absolutely will be done unfairly. Algorithmically displaying content has legitimate uses. The question is, how do you regulate only the harmful ones? I like seeing what I'm looking for, so I want algorithmic content, I just don't want the algorithms to be designed to make me feel bad.

They aren't. There's a reservoir, a pump, and an injector, besides the SCR. But the SCR is already present, it's just a little different in systems with DEF.

That's for freezing conditions. There's a resistor in the reservoir, big whoop.

Cooled EGR is not an either-or to DEF. You can have both.

Indeed, it's extremely laughable to think that Muslims are all Democrats, when they are part of a conservative faith. It's exactly like believing that evangelical Christians are all Democrats.

Unfortunately, most people aren't going to take the step to figure out that their conservatism is just like the conservatism of the people rejecting them.

Whether you like it or not, social media is the new public square.

We can and should regulate how the creators of social media networks take advantage of their positions of authority and control. There is absolutely, positively, and in every other way no reason why we can not or should not do that. There is no principle under which a hands-off approach makes sense.

"Please protect us from child-harm lawsuits since child harm is pretty much our business model."

The gears of justice grind slowly. This is by design. When you go fast, you break things. And also, no. The state didn't make them do it.

Yes, you could. But that's not the case. They know and have known. We've talked about that here a bunch. They willfully conduct psychological experiments on users and monitor the impact.

That's why there's a case... no, wait, thousands of cases.

Facebook willfully psychologically manipulates people into vulnerable emotional states in order to increase engagement, they take advantage of that by knowingly spreading false information and have actually reduced the number of people they have working on reducing the false information and replaced them with automated systems which produce false positives which punish users who are conforming to their rules and standards, but seemingly do nothing to prevent actual violations.

NOx is solved with DEF. The problem is, DEF systems which don't suck aren't solved...

To get the full power out of InDesign takes a lot of learning, but it's still recognizable and comprehensible to someone who worked on Pagemaker on a classic mac. You do have to understand typesetting to understand how to use it, but if you don't, you also probably don't need it.