_blk

Not a novel topic on HN but marketing is by definition manipulative - regardless of the well-meaning of intentions. But IMO regulation is maximally worse since it incentivizes advertisers to maximize for legality for the competitive advantage rather than liberally interpret in favor of their product and customer. People need to be aware of their own behavior in the light of attempted deception and choose "good" accordingly rather than being forced to accept marginally bad advertising merely because it's legal. Advertisers will keep push the boundaries forcing laws to tighten continually - a perpetual cycle (as we can clearly see from books and books of laws, regulations and rulings). In contrast a leanly regulated society chooses to buy good products regardless of advertising will generate better results on all fronts. More laws is rarely the answer. Better people and morals are and laws can never generate that outcome. The founding father John Adams already wrote "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - 1798

TL; DR be kind rather than forcing [fake] kindness.

I sincerely appreciate your comment and your willingness to read through a potentially bad paper - many people are not willing to do that, so a heartfelt thanks. Alas no, I'm not in environmental research. But seeing how quickly my previous post died is somewhat telling of how the challenge-the-climate-theory topic is received here.. Bury rather than consider a different (and admittedly potentially wrong) opinion. I get why mafia is received wrongly but I don't think it's over stated. If you [collective] look at how much money pushes the topic, it's hard to say that it's not powerful. Just looking at the number of private jets at the climate conferences is somewhat telling too. How many speakers are there at those climate conferences that challenge the classic notion of we're all gonna freeze (20-30y ago) to we're all gonna drown (10y ago) to it's getting more extreme on both ends (nowadays)? I was brought up with all of them and yes climate is changing in some ways but change has been a constant with or without man.. Not looking to argue, you can have your opinions and cite your facts, I'm just saying the mainstream opinions and the constant cross-citing didn't convince me. Just for reference, I'm not wearing a tin hat, nor do I think the world is flat and I love people of all faiths and backgrounds.

Yup. clear the caches between switches and they'll start causing voltage spikes to communicate.

Yup. Esp. when space is available. But thet benefit heavily from low pressure environments though so it's not just an arm and a mass in a fence.

Can they procure their own uranium? Coal still has the advantage of being more local, much simpler, faster to get up and running. Smaller plants also means smaller distribution radius etc. so more infrastructure decentralization. I imagine that's part of the thought process too.

You just drop the top half. Or xor it? That'd make for some nice traffic-pattern art ;)

Now the reason this doesn't work is that the address length is not encoded, so if you make the address longer, no one knows about it and they [routers and destinations] just assume the wrong address and send it on or discard the frame

I strongly disagree that an AI-free world view should be granted religious exemptions from an employer - don't like the way it's done, go look somewhere else. Isn't that comparable to refusing to use a phone or computer?

Don't get me wrong, just like the Amish, I believe it's a valid or even honorable choice for him to make. I also highly respect the Amish though because they're a minority that refuses to be victimized by their choices and that's the stance I'd like to see here.

> he does not have to use AI to complete his work. I wonder if that'll just result in him offloading work to people that act as AI proxies for him and then, wouldn't the human have less value than the AI since he just delegates?

Interesting times ahead indeed.

No, it means they get an extra 2h of voting with no legislation backing that nor a precedent to go after.

By an overly apologetic employee that keeps making the same mistake..

> Sorry that turned out to be wrong, let me fix that... [Does it wrong in a different way] -- Claude

Don't worry, the fool with the tool is the fool, not the tool so I'll gladly take the blame since I'd rather have the tool than do without.

Mind you there's a hefty tax surcharge on Diesel that could easily be lowered if the trucking economy was that important to states like California. Two years ago Diesel was at 8$ when it was 4 everywhere else, last year 9$, 5-6 in most other states. Now 10$? Haven't been there lately but it's still at 6 in MO/AR. It's not the oil price that's the problem with the Diesel price.

Uhoh, that'll bring back 1-based array indices

Yes school taxes are local (county and/or city or regional school district) but schools are typically still subsidized by the state too. The fact that schools are rated differently has nothing to do with who goes there, but how it's managed (which definitely has an effect on who goes there when given a choice). That's why I come to the conclusion that free choice of school (private, charter, public or homeschool) is the only sane way to go. Don't force me to send my kids to a bad school when there's a viable option available that I think is better for my kids. My kids, my choice.

Homeschool, vote for free school choice, vote for getting the subsidized funds to where you actually send your kids. Solves most problems related to bad school policies.

They may have better and more open weight models but they sure don't have our western understanding of individual freedom. Go try out their first and second amendment protections, or try the fifth? I'm sure we can find more but mostly, when the state needs the tech there won't be an Anthropic-like appeal against overstepping.