DangitBobby

None of these are specific to EVs or necessary for EVs or really have anything to do with the car being an EV. You'll note that literally all of these things are both possible in an ICEV and are actually present in ICEVs.

I'm sure the doctor arrived at that treatment plan magically without and without any clinical evidence whatsoever. If insurers want to practice medicine they can go work in a hospital.

You don't update standard of care by not trying new treatments, and insurance companies also have financial incentives. It turns out they are the opposite of the incentives of their customers and the doctors.

There's nothing about MAD that requires few actors. This is a just-so story to justify the US and other major powers' monopoly on the weapon, ensuring smaller nations have no deterrence against us and other global nuisances.

How do I know that a system maintained by people is exploitable by people? IDK, that's a real thinker, isn't it. That all systems are exploitable, in absence of human influence, isn't the argument I'm making. It's tautologically true that systems that humans design and implement and depend on the behavior of humans to continue to run would be exploitable by humans. You cannot design a system dependent on human action that is also immune to human nature.

As for the second, the more in control of the system humans are, the more they can exploit it. Your return on exploitation, which I think is really what you're getting at, is based on how diffuse the control and power is at the point that you exploit it. But the more diffuse control and power, the less responsive and effective the system is when working at full tilt. It's two sides of the same coin.

Capitalism is a system of decentralized resource allocation. Decentralized systems have their pros and cons, and other systems that would rely on centrally planned economies have pros and cons. Capitalism isn't the issue, unfettered capitalism is the issue.

It really doesn't have to be that way. The problem boils down to, as with practically all human systems, is human behavior. There is no system you can devise that is run by humans and not corruptible and exploitable by the worst of us. Or even just everyday people.

There's absolutely no reason to assume that getting your hands dirty would be "good for you". Playing outside and getting dirty is fun and is arguably great for enrichment and character building, but I think it would come as a surprise to just about anyone that it has health benefits.

When I say "come as a surprise" I mean they would be unable to articulate the exact mechanisms behind the health benefits before being told what they are or that they exist. Liking a thing and presuming it must have health benefits aren't the same.

The Simpsons explained this one a while back, funnily enough https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI0euMFAWF8

> The general rule of thumb I’ve encountered is closer to 100 - 150 pages.

Practically all novels I've gotten to page 50 on I've finished. The only book I ever made it anywhere close to page 150 without getting anything back was The Fellowship of the Ring, and I think I got to page 200 before giving up (because I felt that I should be a person who liked The Lord of the Rings). It was a grueling experience. I can't fathom putting in 100 pages of joyless reading on a regular basis.

I don't have access to that commenter's state of mind, but I take it to mean that the "corporation" as a singular entity only exists on paper and in fact acts as a group of individual humans. I don't think that's the same thing as saying the structure having _no influence_, especially since that structure pays people and money influences the behavior of individuals. No influence is a much stronger claim than what was made. But I could also just be projecting my thoughts on the matter onto others when I say "no one says structure doesn't influence behavior".

It's also just a razor, and not a very useful one.

No one says structure doesn't influence behavior. Intended behavior is not the same thing as actual behavior, and groups of people don't behave like individual people. Metaphors to organisms are just: metaphors. We've known for a very long time that mobs of people will do nasty, destructive things that individuals in the mob wouldn't otherwise do. Corporations will also do nasty destructive things that individuals in the corporation wouldn't otherwise do.

About half of all comments are completely tangential and/or from people who only read the headline. Another 25% are contrarian bickering. You just have to ignore all that if you want to stay sane.

Cool experiment! It's still possible that the "high quality" users have stopped visiting (and stop voting) as the vibes Septemberized, leaving us with older accounts that act roughly in line with the way September accounts have made it. I'd be interested to know what portion of these older accounts are still voting.

Controversial opinion on this website ;)

We do have this whole global climate crisis going on. Maybe people could try being afraid of that

What are you doing?

I mean, if the guy is going to knife you you can shoot him. Feel free to release your clutched pearls.

The law is not moral license. You can legally do lots of disgusting things, like threaten to murder someone over a non-lethal engagement. Lots of those disgusting things warrant a nice punch in the face, and crying about it or declaring the moral high ground isn't going to move the needle. Why are we cry-bullying and hiding behind threat of lethal violence? Pretty ironic that someone who would criticize "liberal" states for not letting you get away with murder somehow thinks THAT remedy is more civilized than run of the mill combat. You can leave your Grandma at home, this isn't about her, this is about you deciding what is legally permissible is the only thing that matters.

Definitely "bully mentality" to think fisticuffs shouldn't result in unilateral execution by unhinged randos. Summary execution is the "civilized" response. Would-be murderers probably shouldn't be giving lectures online. You astonish me.

I generally agree we have no constitutional right to privacy, but I wouldn't agree going to court against someone will result in their illegal behavior against you being remedied.

Walking or riding my bike to school was certainly not an option. I know very few people (no one?) for which those were options. It was difficult to visit my friends as well so I spent a lot of time alone.

Sounds like a job for a state of the art model...

Yeah my takeaway after reading the article was this seems more like a demonstrated vulnerability in Python than in Claude Code.

Everyone knows that the law is what really matters when it comes to prevailing in court. That's why there's no correlation between money spent on legal representation and the outcome of a ruling.

Depends on where you are. Defending against getting punched in the face by shooting them will get you thrown in prison a good portion of the time. Sometimes being a piece of shit should result in an ass whupping.

How does that work with courts that work to the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law? That rule based on the exact text instead of the history of what went into the drafting and passing of the bill, and refuse to even ask legislators what the intent of the law would have been under certain conditions?

If voters can't understand ranked choice voting or similar, how could we possibly expect them to understand the impact of what they are voting on? It's a self-defeating argument.

Not sure we can get a nice clean definition that we'll all agree on. Maybe that's the goal? Make sure we never talk about it? But nah we're going to keep talking about it. Clearly the definition isn't a hurdle.

That doesn't mean money doesn't tip elections, it just means sometimes money isn't enough. Anyone who has played a pay to win game could have told you that for free.

No more sanewashing please. Thanks.

That's your big plan? Lol. Stop fucking lecturing me if you don't have any ideas. Sick of this kind of shit.