UnFleshedOne

When there is a need (remote space colonies for example), they might need to develop a more robust process that would trade off size and speed of chips for ease of manufacturing.

To be fair, making wood utensils from scratch is multiple orders of magnitude easier than not being poor.

Car traffic might be reduced per capita in higher density areas, but all of it is concentrated and is right near all the people. Multiply by the sirens of ambulance and police that are constantly going somewhere. Compare to a dead-end suburb street which only 5-10 cars have any reason for driving at all.

Those black rubber playgrounds (not sure if that's the same) smell like a chemical factory exhaust on a sunny day (you can also fry some industrial-solvent-laden eggs). Not sure about actual health effect, but experience is far from pleasant...

China is doing pretty well on that front, yeah...

I share all the reservations about this flavor of "safety", but I think you misunderstand who gets protected from what here. It is not safety for the end user, it is safety for the corporation providing AI services from being sued.

Can't really blame them for that.

Also, you can do what you want on your computer and they can do what they want on their servers.

Humans _are_ inherently "made human" by a long path of evolution. We have a set of conflicting heuristics that serve as our initial values and which are more helpful than harmful on average. We then use those to build our moral patchwork.

If you already have a plugin hybrid and a good portion of your trips is under its EV range, why would you need an EV anyway?

I don't think that release was a surprise to the board, so wouldn't that happen before the release?

That's an aquatic beetle, a lot of those store their own air supply under their wings...

No, it is just people who are trying to do something would achieve more in that area than people who are not trying, regardless of conditions. You could change things so that trying is not really required, and it might work wonderfully if the barrier was made up to begin with, but that fails hard when that clashes with reality.

Why don't you focus on that instead?

> "German energy policy of the last two decades" and "Let's Invade Ukraine and Blackmail Europe!"

There is a good argument that those two are related. Energy is a weapon of war for russia, and it works best when there is a dependency on it. A lot of money flows towards increasing that dependency, including towards advocacy groups with irrational stance against nuclear.

He does have a point about food animals though. We are perfectly ok with treating them horribly their whole lives to save few cents on the costs (not to mention killing them at all). Yet we pretend to be shocked when something that makes us feel squeamish happens. And then go right back to chewing on that steak...

That's not much different than supplying other kinds of weapons (and anti-ship missiles are on the list anyway, if not from US then from UK).

Also everybody is mostly over nuclear threat I think. When a nuclear country keeps annexing land and threatens you with nukes if you object, you have two options -- keep giving up or call the bluff (or assassinate the leadership I guess).