Actually the companies generated quite a bit of greenhouse gases directly from mining, refining, and delivering the product. They are directly responsible for the vast majority of methane being emitted. People who buy methane tend to make sure it gets burned.

But I think the big deal is that they knew what the gases would do and did not tell anybody, and actively denied when others made the same conclusion. This is going to be difficult to prove without a lot of paper evidence that they did such research, however.

Correct. The people pushing for this law are admitting that climate change is real.

For the last many years (before the pandemic at least) my "jury duty" has amounted to checking online each evening for a week to see if I need to go to the courthouse the next day. I have not had to ever go in, and I have to go to work like normal.

This is LA County, maybe it is different in other places?

No, it's just that "defund the police" is a really stupid misleading slogan.

Even the most radical leftist ideas of what it would mean would raise the budget. All proposals require more personnel to be hired and to put more people in the field and fewer at desks. The only way it could lower the police budget is to make up some other department and say a lot of these new people are employees of that new department. I believe some proposals do try that subterfuge to try to hide the increased budget. There is also a claim that they should spend less on weapons and military equipment, but unfortunately the cost of that is small compared to the salaries.

If you don't like how things are now, why do you think they will be more agreeable to you 20 years in the future???

Yes that is a good idea.

He could also declare that exporting oil is illegal.

It's doing this on purpose. If you switch the navigation to the native language it starts pronouncing the words correctly. I think they assume it would be better to pronounce things as they think an American who does not know the language would pronounce them.

The editing would be embedded into the web site which is republishing the video, not by applications.

I agree that a signature that is produced by the camera could be used to authenticate a video.

Adding an "advisory link" is NOT CENSORSHIP. No matter how much you cry about it.

You are right about their algorithms making it shitty. Everything should be required to show most-recent first with NO items that you have not somehow "subscribed" to, and this should be the default behavior. They can always put a button on there saying "things you may like" that will show their algorithm, but you can't read/view the contents unless you click on them, and the result is that you are temporarily subscribed to this source and the main view scrolls to the point where you are looking at that item, with things still in chronological order. There can be a button that says "subscribe to this" to make the subscription permanent.

The video should be modified to include the label. If somebody crops or removes the label and tries to post the result, this editing will be detectable and will cause the label to reappear, or whatever triggered the label will still be there and cause it to reappear.

"Community notes" are just another way to add a comment to a video and are useless. The company's rights to free speech allow it to add any logo to the video it wants, including "this is fake/misleading/a lie". That is NOT censorship no matter how many times you cry that you are being censored.

Yes I don't get this, it sounds very dangerous.

Absolutely they should be slapping a big "this is fake" notice on anything their detector flags as AI. If they make a mistake it is up to the person posting the video to complain and prove their stuff is real and get the notice removed. But the notice will not stop anyone from viewing the video.

It sounds like they are allowing politicians to censor parodies they don't like, and possibly not showing the fake notice on ones they do like.

No I'm suggesting the states still have exactly the same number of electoral votes as they do now.

But votes are calculated by multiplying each vote by the number of electoral votes for the state divided by the actual number of votes in the state.

I feel this might pass the constitutional requirements and the result won't be too far from the popular vote.

The winner-take-all aspect of electoral votes is MUCH more damaging than the fact that they don't match the population.

I believe "approval" voting (where a voter can approve as many/few candidates as they want) will work. However it seems like everybody is more comfortable with being able to rank all their choices from best to worse.

The release notes claim the new version has higher accuracy, meaning it returns different (better) answers for some input strings. It seems to me that it's training can't be limited to the old code in order to achieve this. Still agree that if they fed the code to a program and told it "write a better version" then the copyright of the original code still applies. They may also have just generated a lot of strings and in some (many) cases fed them to the old program and told the AI to make a program that produces the same output for these strings. That would probably be allowed under clean-room rules.

According to you EVs have some kind of "special mass" that causes much more tire particulates than the larger mass of an SUV or truck. And brake particulates are totally harmless so regenerative braking does not help.