Ok, please explain how an attacking force will reache close enough to US shores in a way that cannot be caught by the other surveillance methods I mentioned, but would be caught by coastal radar.

The birds that can dodge the blades either have better aerobatic ability, better vision or better situational awareness. Any one of the 3 would work so there's plenty of chances to get it right.

Well, I wouldn't say they are that smart. But natural selection will fix the problem regardless.

When was the last time the US was attacked by something that a radar could see?

Oh that's right, 9/11. Well, those coastal radar installations are facing the wrong way. And frankly even if they were facing the right way, it wouldn't have helped because it takes too long for a fighter jets to intercept them and for a decision to be made to shoot them down.

And the time before that was Pearl Harbor (80 years ago), where the radar worked perfectly fine but people just ignored it. Well, we have satellites, submarines and ships with radar now and we would see the attack coming from 5000 miles away from multiple sources.

Presumably somebody told them hiking is a thing. That person did not tell them how to do prepare for longer hikes.

However, I don't think this points to a systemic failure. There are thousands of teens hiking in the woods at any time and most of them have no trouble.

Just looking at the map is deceiving too. The trails are not always drawn with the right level of detail to see how long it is. If you look at a diagram of the small intestines you wouldn't guess that it's three times longer than your entire body.

Yep, and that makes all of the complaints about social consequences completely moot. You can just use real photos of a bomb crater next to a Gaza hospital.

The death penalty should be points based. Only people who commit multiple serious crimes should receive it.

If the chances of you being wrongfully convicted once is 5%, then the chances of you being wrongfully convicted 3 times is 0.0125%.

Of course the chances of being wrongfully convicted 5% of the time is still a travesty. The deprivation of a significant portion of their life in prison is only a few degrees different from deprivation of their entire rest of their life. We should aim for 0.5% or less. Then the chances of being wrongfully convicted 3 times is 0.0000125% (1 in 8 million).

There's options besides jury and no jury.

You can have a selection process where the prospective juror has to pass a quiz with some basic deductive reasoning questions. You can have professional jurors who have to take a class. You can have a panel of judges acting as a jury.

Pleading the 5th will harm you. The prosecution will bring somebody to weave a story in front of the jury. If you don't take the stand, their version of the story becomes much more believable. I suspect there is something innate about believing people who claim to have experienced it talking directly to you. You have to be extremely analytical to look at the physical evidence that contradicts the narrative and actually believe that over your gut feelings.

It's the same type of legal fiction as pretending every person knows every law.

If you want it to work properly, you have to stop allowing anyone to take the stand. Letting people take the stand, especially victims, create an emotional bias and unfairly helps people who are good actors.

I think another 20 years probably. People don't really want to be jurors. The moment they can hand it off to a good enough AI, they'll go for it.

He was probably told by the board to get on board with AI.

Which is why murder rates went sky high as guns became much cheaper relative to average income... oh wait.

The entire argument only sounds good if you don't really think about it. I mean, just look at the antecedent "If AI cheating is dramatically easier and lower-risk". This statement is completely different from what you guys were arguing about. "Dramatically easier" and "dramatically easier and lower-risk" are very different. The former does not imply the latter. Even if the conditional statement is true, the conclusion doesn't follow because nobody said it's lower risk.

https://itif.org/publications/...

https://www.aspistrategist.org...

Well, are they making the earliest DUV machines or something on par with the most advanced ones?

Would you like to do the math on how many software people are there in the world and how much they would pay, combined?

Next, consider that many will pay a lot less than $5000. Finally, compare that to the $2.5 trillion. How many other lucrative industries like software are there that would pay?

You have to tax or ban products that use difficult-to-recycle packaging. Waste has a negative value and negative externality. You can't let the free market fix the problem.

Some countries have a $2 of CRV equivalent. That's enough for people to put in the effort to recycle. Alternatively, you can require manufacturers to buy back the waste.

Directly subsidizing building of factories that make highly recyclable or compostable packaging is another option.

Durable goods don't really need recycling rules. We don't use enough for it to matter. Only large objects like cars and buildings need special waste handling.