I've been wondering for many years before the first traffic camera appeared, why the toll-roads aren't enforcing the speed limits automatically. The time you enter and exit the highway is recorded down to a second. The distance between these two points is known — your average speed could be computed on the spot even with the early 90-ies technology...

The polite police officers would be standing right behind the toll-booths issuing tickets without the drama of hiding in the bushes, then chasing you at highway speeds...

And, yeah, you could lower it by stopping at a rest area — but it'd still be a tremendous disincentive to speed.

I was and continue to hope, that such universal enforcement, affecting all voters, would cause the limits to go up to reasonable figures — or even be abolished completely...

I've run into these people, they're the worst

When have you last checked your compiler's output?

That's because people willing to pay to take a toll road to save speed can always avoid said toll road if they actually have to follow the speed limit on it. That eliminates the revenue the toll road gets, costing them money.
Florida had this situation with a new toll road that runs parallel to the highway around Orlando. Cops were running speed traps there. They were quickly banned because they noted it was killing the number of people taking the road, costing them far more in revenue.

Perhaps, but camera systems without the officer don't actually issue "tickets" that carry points. They issue "citations" that show up nowhere if paid.

To paraphrase a general, by ensuring they do die for their cause, and we don't.
Our job isn't to die for our country, but to make them die for theirs.

That said, it's expensive and hard, and best avoided when possible.

The problem you get though is what I call the "California Cancer Warning Problem"
Basically, people can only pay attention to so many warnings. The more often people get false or trivial warnings, warnings where they have to continue to get things done as standard, the more likely they are to just plain ignore the warnings.

While hackers might be able to figure out a way to do something malicious without triggering the warning, the warnings back then were worse than useless, because they not only triggered for just about every document, users by default could not assess the document for safety without enabling the scripting. IE I couldn't by default open the document and look at the scripts to assess them (and some of them were only like a dozen lines) without enabling them.

Saying the warnings were necessary also ignores that there have been exploits that didn't even require opening a document to cause infection. Preview was enough.

Basically, if the hackers figured out something clever, just add that to the check. It would still be a better situation than what we had back then.

I’d argue that slavery wasn’t “legal because nobody banned it.” It was legal because there were explicit laws that created, defined, and enforced the institution.

There were statutes specifying who could be held as slaves, rules that the child of an enslaved woman was automatically a slave, procedures for manumission, regulations on how slaves could be bought, sold, punished, or inherited, and laws requiring that escaped slaves be returned. That’s not a legal vacuum, that’s a full legal framework.

It’s similar to how segregation laws later forced discrimination on people who might not have engaged in it otherwise. The state wasn’t passively allowing something; it was actively mandating and structuring it.

Slavery existed because the law built and maintained it, not because the law failed to forbid it.

I remember those days where it would warn if there was any scripting at all, rather than look for dangerous commands first.
Just as a thought, not bothering if the script cannot reach outside of the document itself. Functions that access other files or documents, email functionality, and such triggering the warning instead would have been more effective.

Grok was constantly say it was doing something that it had ZERO ability to, and I kept calling it out and it kept apologizing and then immediately doing it again.

As a guy who spend 5 figures a year on Ai, the last thing I want is that. I know Claude and ChatGPT also do it, but Grok was doing it CONSTANTLY.

produces higher quality sperm

That's really important for the sperm destined for the septic system, sure...

They're still in denial about that. Had one just a couple days ago saying that the gas price increases are just the regular price increase in the spring.

There's a bit of subversion here though: Going by my uncle, social security disability has made it even easier: They automatically reject every application the first time.

I was just reading a story where a woman ended up in jail six months, extradited to North Dakota from Tennessee.
The only evidence it was her was an AI facial recognition match between her social media/driver's license and the video of the actual suspect.
It wasn't until the first court date that the public defender got her financial records showing she was in Tennessee when the crime actually happened.
Then they kicked a southern state person out into ND winter without proper clothing, not even bothering to get her a ride back home.

She lost her house and car due to non-payment because she couldn't pay bills while in jail.

Looking, she'll probably end up with a $2-3M settlement.

https://www.theguardian.com/us...

I actually do, it is just that you don't understand the analogy.
Basically, by forgiving the loans, it's the equivalent of the government refunding the money the person was supposed to pay back.
Keep in mind that people sometimes have to declare loan forgiveness as income.