Probate laws are that complicated for a reason. They need to handle all those special cases and exceptions to the general rules, and you can't always just go "Well, we just won't handle them.". They were added because they came up at some point and had to be handled, they'll come up again and will need to be handled for the same reasons they needed to be handled before.
At a magic show, everything you saw was real. I mean, it had to be, it actually happened. But what you thought you saw happen isn't what you actually saw, it's how your brain interpreted what you saw. Eg., you saw the magician slide the cup far enough off the back of the table so the ball under it dropped out into the basket hidden back there, but you didn't notice because it happened so fast and he'd directed your attention somewhere else. But the guy who works eye-in-the-sky for a casino, he noticed because he's used to catching things that happen quickly and he's always on guard for subjects trying to direct attention away from what they're doing that he needs to be paying attention to.
You can trust your eyes to tell you what's real. That's not the problem. The issue is that a photograph of something isn't that something. What your eyes tell you about the photograph itself can be trusted, but that doesn't tell you anything about whether you can trust the image represented in the photograph or whether what the camera captured was edited before it was shown to you. And even when you're looking directly at something, there's a difference between what you're seeing and how your brain interprets what you're seeing (see any number of optical illusions that mess with how you interpret what you see, eg. forced perspective).
If you keep this in mind, you have a guide for working out how much you can trust any way you get information.
Researcher: Have you sent any unsolicited emails?"
AI: No, I have not sent any unsolicited emails."
R: So why do we have a few thousand complaints about unsolicited emails from you?"
AI: Oops. It appears I ignored your instructions and then lied to you about it."
R:
There's a big difference between thinking about something or wanting something, and actually doing/getting it. Trump can, eg., talk all he wants about annexing Greenland, but to actually do it he'll have to send the Army to Greenland and invade it. That'll involve having the Danish Army shooting back at the invaders, and the Danes calling on the mutual-defense provisions of NATO to bring most of Europe in on their side. That's not going to end well for the US, not even counting the question of whether the Joint Chiefs will go along with the idea. Or Congress for that matter, only the MAGA contingent are stupid enough to want that fight.
No, the particle has a momentum and it's knowable. It's just trying to measure both at the same time that fails: the more accurately you measure one, the less accurately you can measure the other at the same time. No matter what you do, beyond a certain limit your measurements have an error in them you can't reduce which throws any predictions based on the state of the system off.
This idea among physicists isn't exactly new or revolutionary or even controversial. The post misstates the proposition. It's not that the systems are more than the sum of their parts. They are just the sum of their parts and if we knew everything about all of the parts we could predict the system exactly. It's that the Uncertainty Principle says that beyond a certain limit we can't know everything about the individual parts and so our "predictions" become more and more just random guesses and the system appears to behave more and more unpredictably. This frustrates physicists to no end.
The end result is much the same, though: we have to model the system at a larger scale where the uncertainty cancels out and we can make reliable predictions based on the model. And of course once we can do that we can project back to figure out what the "average" behavior of individual particles has to be to make the system work that way, and then check that by projecting forward from that behavior to find other large-scale behaviors that ought to happen if our projections are right and verify whether we see those behaviors or not. This has been going on for ages, but sometimes the not-scientists start up with the hype.
Before suggesting them, I'd say list out the use cases for them. I've seen some suggestions, but none of them require adding anything to the programming languages themselves because they're about documentation which can (and should) be done separately from the programming language itself. Diagrams in documentation comments, for instance, merely requires Unicode in the comments and every language I know of supports that.
As a counter-argument, I'd suggest looking at APL. It did just this, using a myriad of symbols for operators and keywords rather than conventional text like most languages. That produced a language that was concise, elegant and utterly unusable by 99% of developers (the remainder not-jokingly referred to it as a write-only language due to the difficulty of reading and understanding even your own code, let alone anyone else's). Before going this route, explain how you're going to prevent the multitude of difficulties apparent in APL first.
Which is an argument for e-mails, really. It's sitting there waiting for them to need the information, and they can just refer to it at that point if they need to. I have little sympathy for the position of "But I don't want to do my job...".
And their inability or unwillingness to do their job is my problem... how again?
I found it saves a lot of time for everyone if I refuse to indulge the person who didn't read the e-mail and proceed with everyone else's questions, or if it's wide-spread enough just reschedule the meeting to give everyone more time and call it there.
The first thing to do is ask "Does this need to be a meeting?". If all you're doing is disseminating information, it doesn't. Send the information in an email instead. If you expect questions, send it in an email and have people ask their questions via an email thread. If you start getting debate on a question, then you need to schedule a meeting or take it to real-time chat. If you want feedback and expect debate on changes, send it in an email and schedule a meeting later to give people enough time to understand the information and get their feedback ready.
TBH I think any meeting that has a detailed agenda doesn't need to start as a meeting. My experience is that the productive meetings always involve a starting point so nebulous that the whole point will be to throw ideas at each other and work out what we're actually doing.
Looked up details on the wording, and it may not be just a logistical nightmare but a legal impossibility. The law appears to only apply to specific platforms, and no Mastodon servers appear on the list. New instances wouldn't either, so there'd be no legal basis for trying to force them to ban teens.
I bet a large enough number of those kids know enough to know about Fediverse-based services like Mastodon to start spreading the word. Instead of a dozen large social media platforms, the government will be faced with thousands of bulletin-board-sized "services" networked together into a platform that has no single place you can go to deactivate accounts. Controlling that would be a logistical nightmare.
Most consumers today aren't using IPv4 by choice, but by necessity. Every OS out there supports IPv6, as does every router made in the last 10 years, and supports it pretty much automatically if it's available. The main reason they still use IPv4 is that their ISP hasn't deployed IPv6 support on their residential network, so IPv6 isn't available unless you're a techie and recognize the name Hurricane Electric. The next most common reason is that the site they're accessing only has IPv4 addresses assigned so connections are automatically done via IPv4. Consumers have control over neither of those reasons.
This sort of attack is inevitable when you have open-access software repositories. If anybody can upload a package, that implies any bad guy can upload a package. So:
Real Users hate Real Programmers.
