yetanotherloser

The problem isn't that, it's governments being excessively reactive to things. In their view few people dying of random mishaps is always an excuse for more government. In my view everybody dies of something and faced with the threat of a 251g drone to the skull vs the horror of everyone pickled in aspic under maximum government insanity just to preserve me long enough enough into decrepitude that the medics get to torment me properly before death, bring on the drone. A society where people aren't free to die of ordinary mishaps is a sick society.

Solution: stop saying "why didn't you do anything", righteously slap people who do.

It's a lot easier to live in London without a car than outside it. As far as I know most new flats in London don't allow car parking anyway.

(I am a non driving Londoner and it's pretty good. I don't think I'd feel the same way in many other places)

Not Safe For... Luncheon?

If that is your initialism then... bravo.

Where did someone suggest it did?

That sounds unlikely. It's not how stainless steel works; to bond a coating to the surface of the stainless you have to fight the stainlessness pretty hard.

You get more of what you subsidise. Looks like that social grant did as designed and created a shitload of social grant recipients - politically useful to someone, at vast human cost.

Gini coefficients?

No.

Low chance of being caught, low chance of meaningful punishment, low public profile of punishment putting it out of sight and put of mind. High chance of being let off, which has a higher public profile. It may make wellmeaning people feel good and it avoids hurting some individuals, but it's disastrous for society.

It's a knowing jest, not a sincere statement - and a reminder to the others to keep the show going for their audience.

I think the word you're looking for is calo-horrific.

...being anti-hospital in the 19th century sounds fairly rational to me?

I'd never realised that before. Thank you, I think.

Deary, deary me.

Raising kids without driving them anywhere, but instead teaching them to walk early, walk often and walk far is also easy - and really good in lots of ways - unless you live in one of those awful places with no sidewalk/pavement, in which case move or campaign for one. Raising children without cars is still something of a majority experience in the world and was universal for millennia. They have legs, and are portable until well after you've raised them to use them.

There have hardly been 4 generations of aspartame consumers, since quite a few of the 1970s generation are still with us (would it be more or less if they'd had no aspartame? I have no idea, do you?) and mass use didn't kick in until later anyway.

That's hilarious.

I'm pretty sure that was a spoof. But still :-D

You could avoid those by getting rid of cars, rather than adding more cars controlled by unaccountable programs with OTA updates pushed by people saying YOLO.

Ditto if you cross the road. I think this is fine. Arguably the AVs are the source of the disruption anyway, since a human piloted vehicle would cope.

For "LLMs" read "corporations" (it's not the LLM trying to argue that copyright applies to you but not them) and this seems... possibly ok?

I couldn't think of a better phrase, ok? glad if it amused!

I do take the point but I feel like the era of the factory factory was a while ago and I'm almost nostalgic for it compared to the dubious soup that we seem to have to deal with now.

I thought that was a plus?

Outside. There's even a nice blue ceiling (or, for British users, a nice grey ceiling)

Ah. Sorry, I got the wrong end of the stick there!

I have never, ever met a yachtsman who wants to carry any kind of anti orca weaponry. Let's not exaggerate here.

They've not yet shown any sign of being a danger to the hull as far as I know. They pretty often break the rudder off leaving the boat difficult to control. Most long distance sailors would carry some kind of emergency rudder arrangement but more casual coastal types don't usually.

Speculation among sailors is that "hey, did you know you can break bits off those things?" is as plausible an explanation as any.

There are known ways to scare orcas off but it's illegal to distress them and nobody really wants to. I certainly don't.

You've just given me a weird desire to try talking people into flat earthism just to get a feel for how difficult it is. I'm holding off... for now!

I do take your point though, the world is replete with causes which more or less look like averagely smart or even smarter people talked into campaigning for something that is against evidence, sense, morality or reason - or all of the above - which are also probably (or provably) against their own interests. I'm sure everyone reading can provide their own examples but please don't. I remain unconvinced that this sort of persuasion scales neatly with intelligence, though.

Calling the behaviour of GPT in these scenarios "an effort" implies a model of how it works that I don't think everybody shares.

Very intelligent humans have more persuasive power over less intelligent humans than they do over most animals. Even then it's very inconsistent and it's not at all clear that intelligence helps win over humans all that much.

I will worry about hyperpersuasive AI when someone manages to come up with one that can talk flat earthers out of it...

Classified, but inferrable from the size of launch vehicles and basic optical properties. Still incredibly impressive.