BOTH screwed up. The system shouldn't have made the match and the human should have done a better job seeing that the match was wrong. I'll go one larger and say the people who created the procedures screwed up because they didn't make allowances for the possibility of the first two screw-ups.

The problem is, people have been over-trusting technology since technology was invented. Consider the '70s when corporate representatives were so fond on the phrase "But the computer says...". Yes, you could hear the bold italics in their voice, as if it was the infallible final word on everything.

If THE COMPUTER says you shoplifted, rest assured, some dolt in a suit will treat that like God's own word booming from the clouds.

But every person who sets foot in that store probably "kinda" looks like someone who has shoplifted. And since shoplifters look like everybody else, everyone COULD be a shoplifter.

Yep. Honestly native builds are what I really need to switch. I appreciate Wine and think its nice, but everything has enough little quirks and workarounds and such that I don't like using it for gaming.

And if I'm being honest, a big enough amount of my gaming is just hearthstone as a side diversion these days that if Blizzard released it for Linux, I'd switch for my main desktop tomorrow.

As it is I just keep 2 machines on a KVM. Windows when I'm gaming, Linux when I'm not.

Many have voted with hairspray and a sawzall.

It isn't about what China would find on the moon, but rather that the whole process would mean they are doing fundamental research and this would lead to advancement for them. Since the US is mostly doing "rent seeking" and much less advancement like that, this would lead to the US falling back in the tech compared to China. At least that's the theory, and why some on the US side are frightened by a tech China on the moon.

It's worse, they don't have to go sentient at all. The black death wasn't sentient but it wiped out whole towns anyway.

Rogue agents with no awareness have already demonstrated that they will act against any entity with a conflicting goal, including humans.

IIRC, more than one lawyer has gotten in to hot water because of AI hallucinations in legal briefs. They sign their name to those, they are responsible.

The legal process is adversarial but it is not anything goes. Fabricating evidence and perjury are out of bounds for example.

I think this falls into that category.

OTOH, if the court DID use AI to make decisions, the whole court would invalidate itself, so there is some ethical wiggle room.

AI should have no agency at all. It should only advise the human in the loop who is actually responsible for what happens.

And their viewers presumably want to view it.

I think there are a few reasons we have landed on the model we have.

1. People don't like unbounded liabilities. This is scary enough with regular web-hosting but given the huge size of video files, hosting them on your own website was frankly terrifying.
2. Most people (both viewers and creators) don't' want to pay actual cash for messing about online, so ad-driven services rule the roost, it's much easier to do that if you have scale.
3. Many of the major platforms ran at a loss for years and may still be doing so, at least in terms of direct profits. Afaict both Twitch and Youtube post revenue figures but not profit figures.

The authorities control all the exits sure, but unless they plan to search the devices of everyone on the plane, it's difficult to see how they could determine who was behind the mischief

Whether we like it or not, whether we use Windows or not, Microsoft is going to insist on adding the tax whether the PC comes shipped with Windows or not. This is illegal bundling, Microsoft has essentially ignored prior rulings, and it's pretty much a certainty the courts will be fine with this.

The headline talks about eliminating the disease, but the body talks about stuff like reducing the number of deaths below some threshold, that doesn't sound like "elimination" to me. Am I missing something?

The problem is we don't have a control group of people who don't ingest microplastics but are otherwise the same as those who do. We can of-course compare the health of people from more and less contaminated areas, but those more and less contaminated areas will likely also differ in other ways, both known and unknown, that may have more significant effects than the microplastics.