TFA: "If you want to ban profiting from the failure of clinical trials, you would start with the stock market, where the financial incentive for this type of profit is orders of magnitude larger," said Kalshi spokesman Jack Such, pointing to stock market short sellers who have profited from clinical trial failures. "While Kalshi and the stock market are the same in this regard, they do differ in one important way: the stock market doesn't give any valuable information to researchers," Such said.

This is either ignorant and/or maliciously deceptive for the simple fact that there are rules against insider trading. Investors in pharmaceutical companies are not (or at least, should not be) privy to modifying the conduct of a trial in order to secure or deny approval. There is no similar oversight for these betting markets. Sure, they might say that your wager could be disqualified if it comes out that you interfered in the outcome, but that is little comfort for the trial participants and the drug sponsors, who can't just hop into a time machine and run it back.

And that's why there are so many regulations surrounding the conduct of clinical trials. People might argue that there is corruption and untoward influence already--that FDA approvals (especially under the current administration) are not necessarily based purely on scientific and medical legitimacy. But that's a very strange argument to put forth in defense of enabling MORE interference.

While I'm at it, let's also just shut down the absurd idea that betting markets somehow facilitate better information sharing about novel treatments. The point of these trials is to gather the evidence in an unbiased, objective, scientific way. Betting on them is not going to gather you any more meaningful evidence than what the trial designers have specified in the study protocol. The idea that "the market is efficient" is not in any meaningful sense a scientific approach to deciding whether an investigational product actually works. If that were the case, the FDA would be basing approvals off stock prices.

Honestly, who do these assholes think they're fooling? The only reason why they want to do this is because the house takes their cut, win or lose.

We can debate ad nauseam about the appropriateness of Asimov's laws, their historical context, how he as a SF writer applied them in his work, whether or not he was "right," etc. But the essential problem remains: the current framework that we are using to develop these technologies are inadequate for the purpose of ensuring safety.

Now, some people would argue otherwise--that, to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs. Every technology has the potential for misuse. Nothing can ever be 100% safe. And I don't dispute this, but that is also not the point, because, again, the central question of safety has to do with designing systems that will not destroy us. We're not talking about individual adverse impacts--which, mind you, we should strive to avoid as well--but the kind of technology that has the potential for global impact. Not enough effort has been made to safeguard against this contingency.

And we also have people who would say that such worries are needlessly alarmist, and assert that current systems are nowhere near that level of capability. That may be true. But that kind of thinking is much like climate change denialism in that it is rooted in a failure to anticipate and plan. Scientists warned us about climate change over 50 years ago and nothing was done; the evidence continues to mount and there still are people who have a financial and political motive to deny it. And for similar motives, there are people who insist on moving forward incautiously, with no regard for safety or ethics or consequences, because it gives them power and money.

I'm less interested in the specifics about whether Asimov's laws are appropriate or sufficient or correctly ordered, than I am about what we actually need to do as a race to prevent disasters. Let the historical record show that have been profoundly cavalier--we literally discovered planet-destroying science (nuclear fission) and then treated it like a toy. I don't think it is unreasonable to express doubts about our ability to have learned our lesson.

This doctor is fucking me over less than the other one, who engaged in straight-up fraudulent billing. Lack of Linux support is easier to deal with.

I was honestly expecting Chromium on Linux to work, not sure what specific components would be missing.

I feel blessed that it's this particular time Apple chose to release their netbook. Right when I needed Mac OS on the cheap. Really hoping they don't rug pull the support window, I could see myself using this Neo into 2033 and beyond.

I know due process only applies in criminal cases, but this seems egregious:

The fact that you had to point this out is in itself very telling: it shows that the issue isn't simply the extent of corruption, but also the overwhelming success with mass disinformation and censorship.

I know the term is overused, but Americans really are being gaslit into believing that these brazenly criminal acts are things that previous administrations have always done, or that the current administration deserves to do it because they have secured the power to do so. And neither of these are even remotely true.

There's this insidious mass delusion facilitated by the oligarchy and mainstream media. Their fascist playbook is:

1. Commit as many crimes as possible, as quickly as possible, so that people don't have time to react or investigate. This is Steve Bannon's "muzzle velocity" strategy.

2. Control media messaging and suppress honest journalism by taking ownership of media corporations and threatening those who refuse to be silenced.

3. Delay or bury investigations through misuse of government resources and agencies. Ignore court rulings.

4. With cooperation of tech companies, set up mass surveillance to make people afraid to oppose them.

5. Instill hopelessness in the public by showing that they are still getting away with these crimes.

Mac OS seems good, from my minimal usage. Good enough that I bought a Neo to fill the netbook-shaped hole in my roster. First time buying an Apple product with my own money. (You can see my decades of disparaging posts on that website Slashdot.)

Is it *great*? Probably not, if I tried going too far off the beaten path. And I'm sure there's tracking and telemetry there hiding. Even a bit of cloud promo. But compared to Windows? My doctor's telehealth portal doesn't like Linux, so that was out too.

Not so much the laptop, but everything they neglected for the laptop.

In the last election, I voted against one candidate simply because of his police connection.

The only solution is successful lawsuits against the cities and counties that employ these scum. Can this happen? I don't know.

That "law" supposes the question is answered, and furthermore supposes what that answer is, and all regardless of the initial question.

Maybe that's why nobody respects that "law".

I'm not surprised it had the trail, but I am surprised it wasn't sending a bunch of cars down it.

Wonder if the police will start treating it as flippantly as they do "theft during a drug deal".

These people aren't able to think with nuance. They're disposed to parrot the corporate line. They're not capable of considering anyone but themselves, their situation, and whatever sad sack they worked with that one time - and painting everyone with that narrow brush.

Are you trying to enroll for the next semester? That's not how you enroll.

In case you haven't heard it yet, this is the pitch: Out-of-control AIs are rampaging across the internet, and the only course of action is for you to purchase defensive AI.