First, who actually goes to banks in person any more? Second, I can think of half a dozen business local to me that currently don't have the same closing times already. So your argument falls flat.

I never said anything about either ratio or geography. Are you replying to the right person? Regardless, again, the alternative solution is to adjust hours, not clocks. If you arrive at and leave work or school an hour later in the summer, it has the same effect as DST.

First, I'm not promoting standard time. Personally, I'd prefer DST all year. But that's irrelevant except to point out that you shouldn't make assumptions. Second, your "problem" can be solved easily by having "core hours" for businesses that need to deal with others. But there are plenty of business that could set their hours however they please.

The best solution I heard was to switch to permanent standard time, but businesses and local governments would be (and always were) free to have "summer hours" (where hours of operation shift back one hour, the opposite of the way we currently shift clocks) and "winter hours." So instead of forcibly making everyone change their clocks, give them the choice to change their hours.

Low-voltage wiring or fiber optic cabling doesn't require permits or inspections. I haven't read the text of the bill, but there might be a provision that the landlord must make reasonable allowances for independent internet installation.

Mac on the other hand are for coders that havn't [sic] learned linux yet, ...

I used Linux and Solaris for many years, but then MacOS X came out and I switched since it's a BSD-ish environment and all normal Unix software compiles and runs just fine on it. I'd much rather focus on actually coding than doing sys-admin stuff. I gladly let Apple take care of that.

.. and the Constitution amended to require it.

The Constitution has been for some time and will continue to be for the foreseeable future a read-only document. The US has become too politically polarized to meet the requirements of a Constitutional Amendment.

That's like saying you shouldn't lock your doors and windows because a determined thief will break in regardless.

A simple deny-list is all that's needed to implement that. You don't need AI in the browser .

FTFS:

The reason why they're putting in the systems is to collect information." Von Tetzchner said that AI in browsers presents the same problem as social media algorithms that decide what people see based on collected data.

A browser already has access to every website you visit and every value of every form-fill. How would using AI in the browser enable collecting more information? What information?

And a browser is supposed to go to whatever URL I specify and render the site. How can it control what I see?

On the other hand, unless companies were allowed to profit from life-saving technology, there would be no incentive to invest in the R&D to invent it if another company could come along and just duplicate the technology. Or you could develop such technology only in government labs. But the funding for that can't compare to corporate funding, especially in the US of late.

⦠it's got a long, long way to go before it can replace human interaction.

While not exactly the same since it's not AI, some guy married an anime character. Different strokes I guess..

And section 230 allows them to do both. You don't understand section 230. See here.

You're confused or replying to the wrong person. I never made any arguments regarding human evolution or historical diets nor did I make any argument against anything.

My guess is because vegetarians believe it will be easier to convince omnivores to be vegetarians if there were at least a transition-period meat-substitute product to make the transition easier, i.e., not have to give up burgers cold turkey.