chmod775

> I do believe that.

If we're starting out from different axioms, there's really no point for us to argue about about policy and outcomes. We'll have to align our assumptions first.

> At least if you burned it, it would offset inflation for a few days.

Yes. And keeping it in Meta's coffers might ultimately redirect economic output towards maintenance of Zuck's yachts.

> Again, interesting to suggest that this is the other fair outcome here for advertising shenanigans, but not for the many corporations who outright kill people every day like health insurers.

You're conflating moral and legal arguments and read things into people's comments that were never said - only as a setup for some whataboutism. For your second post in a row.

There's an interesting discussion here, but this is not how to have it.

Often I get a lot more out of some YouTuber/streamers's slightly scuffed cover of a song than the original studio recording. "Perfect" music often makes me feel nothing. It's the tiny individual mistakes and flourishes that make it easier to relate to the performer and music as a human - and that's what puts a smile on my face listening to it.

I'm trying to puzzle together the belief system that makes your comment coherent.

You seem to assume that money being transferred from Meta's into New Mexico state coffers is worse than burning it. Also did the people of New Mexico not elect their government?

Additionally, what instance of "giving people cancer" is not being pursued because resources were allocated to this instead?

Finally, fines must be high enough to have the intended effect of deterrence. If only absurdly high fines work, which appears to be the case in Meta's instance, then absurdly high they must be. If they continue that pattern of behavior while ignoring every fine, then the only alternatives would be either shutting Meta down for being a criminal enterprise and putting people behind bars, or throwing the idea of "rule of law" out the window. A high fine is doing them a favor.

> In short, shouldn't the amount of money you expect for a fine be at least vaguely proportional to the harms caused?

No. Fines are punitive and intended for deterrence. You're thinking of reimbursements (cost recovery and damages). The latter is intended to be proportional to real world harm/costs, the former need not be.

A traffic law violation could cause no harm, but you'll still get fined for it.

Some jurisdictions even impose fines based on how deep the defendants' wallet is, calculating the amount that might serve as appropriate deterrent/punishment based on their financial situation. Fining a billionare $50,000 for literring will still not serve as a deterrent, but doing the same to a minimum wage worker would unfairly financially ruin them.

> Where's the proof? How do you know it didn't search, find, and discard?

They found their page being cited in various AI generated slop around the internet, including an acedemic paper, investment research, an Indian publication, etc.

Brimstone meets none of the criteria, not for self-guidance, nor for range (especially not when launched surface-to-surface). Plus you'd have to bring a launch platform within range of Russian air-defense/frontlines to even use it.

I'd be curious to learn what advanced self-guided missile can accurately strike targets just a measly 70km away for $200k, and what the supporting infrastructure and hardware costs to buy and run.

Also you're still not remotely competetive with drones that can be carried and operated by infantry at that price point. Who's going to do reconaissance so you even know where to strike before you fire that missile? A drone provides all of that in a package that'd still be less than 1/10th the cost.

The difference is that those missiles are expensive multi-million dollar munitions, while these drones are mass produced for less than $20k/unit and yet are still capable of taking out heavy armor.

Ukraine is already using drones that can autonomously identify and seek out even moving targets, without any operator required during the terminal phase.

Drones with that sort of capability started appearing on the battlefield more than a year ago, and it has only been refined since.

Examples are the RAM-2X, the Helsing HX2, and whatever drones they use that automatically identify and seek out stationary aircraft on Russian airfields.

Models have proclivities, and many people use the same model.

Imagine all books on earth were written by just 5 people - and worse, they could not remember what they had written yesterday. You would quickly get tired of reading the same flourishes and patterns over and over.

Whatever style models currently in use have, that's what people are going to be tired of, and it's what they're going to recognize as "AI".

And in the EU I get a label with both on Google Maps: "Lake Ontario (Lake America)"

Same for the Gulf of Mexico.

Language is another dimension on top of location when it comes to maps. At least the German maps pretty much translate that label 1:1.

> My objection to the Trolley problem is that it assumes that people are interchangeable like ants and that the only thing that matters is "lifes saved".

The problem statement contains no such thing.

Expressing yourself succinctly takes both intelligence and courage.

The idiot rambles on and the coward hides behind a wall of text that would be exhausting to refute.

We are all one or the other occasionally.