To be fair, I don’t think I’ve seen most geoengineering techniques, especially the sulfur reflective particles one, presented as not being ecologically disastrous (though the particular damage I’ve previously seen it suggested as likely to cause was different). I’ve usually seen that presented in a “thing to consider if the consequences of warming becomes worse than the consequences of simulating a long term volcanic winter” context, in which case, pointing out that these ideas cause other damage and that their effect isn’t to just revert the climate to what it was isn’t really “debunking” them, it’s just presenting a better picture of what the potential costs and benefits actually are.

Ive only been using linux for a few months and still dont feel confident that I know what im doing except when the gui can do a thing intuitively, so probably that beginning stage, except the distro Ive been using (ZorinOS) isnt on here. I think its based on Ubuntu tho so maybe that covers it idk. Been thinking about trying a different distro to see if its any better but reinstalling all my stuff again sounds like a hassle so I might just stick with the setup I have for awhile longer.

I think that the general idea of artificial intelligence in education hold some promise, in the sense that if you could construct a machine that can do much of the work of a teacher, it should enable kids to be taught in an individual way currently only possible for those rich enough to afford a private tutor, and such a machine would be labeled as an AI of some kind. The trouble is, like with so many other things AI, that our AI technology just doesn’t seem to be up to the task, and probably just won’t be without some new approach. We have AI just smart enough for people to try to do all the things that one could use an AI for, but not smart enough for the AI to actually do the job well.

Tbf one if the use cases for display technologies with high pixel density is vr headsets.

after years and many billions of dollars of technological development, we have finally invented a machine that can be scammed

Something I do wonder about these laws: could a person self-hosting a private fedi instance that only they have an account on, argue that they meet age verification requirements by virtue of personally knowing the age of the only user? Or at that point would the whole network of federated servers count as the “platform” rather than the instance?

“saving children’s lives? we can’t have that!” -maga, apparently

Executing someone for being delusional or heavily propagandized strikes me as morally dubious, removing a politician from power achieves a similar effect without having to embrace capital punishment.

Probably because they didnt go throught the government, which takes a long time to move on anything, and just put pressure on some profit seeking corporations that just want to get a bother to go away, but which also unfortunately have been put in a position of practical power equal to some types of legislation.

They’re not, they’re saying that other people are going to do that, and that them doing so will create problems for unrelated jewish people long into the future.

I’m fairly new to using Linux, is there an Ubuntu for every letter of the alphabet?

First they’d have to get fusion power to produce net electricity, and then for it to produce it economically compared to other sources. We’ve made progress but it’s been decades in the making and I’d be willing to bet will be a few decades more, even if I do expect it to get there one day.

But what’s dystopian about fusion? It’s just another energy source. A bit cleaner than some of the older ones, but not really anything fundamentally different.

States rights was never really an ideal (in general, if it’s wrong to allow something in one state, it’d be wrong to allow it in the rest, after all). It was just a thing to bring out whenever the federal government disagreed with something they wanted but some states didn’t. But now that they control the federal government, it becomes a liability, so they drop it.

Handedness

To be fair, indigenous in this sort of context usually refers to a colonial state where the ruling group is different from the one there before a colonial empire got there. I don’t usually see it used for populations that haven’t been subject to conquest and occupation like that within the last millenia or so, even if it could technically fit, it’d be a bit redundant.

Though if the history of, say, Ireland is any indication, historically when white Europeans end up in that kind of position they haven’t faired much better.

If that were true, Disney and a number of other large companies would not exist.

I mean, I doubt people tend to buy medication based on the name of the company making it, so do they really have much incentive to change it?

The issue I can see with that model is that, depending on how exactly it is implemented, it might end up spilling into places that involve people who were doing nothing unreasonable. For example, suppose a criminal makes a pipe gun, or a 3-d printed one, and uses that in a crime. If we’re always looking down the chain, do we also hold responsible whoever sold them the pipes, or the printer, or other machining tools? The easy enough answer is to except steps that don’t usually have to do with firearms I suppose (where the people involved would not generally have reason to expect the purchaser is using what they buy for those purposes), but in taking that obvious step, one would create a situation where acquiring guns through less traceable and safe means becomes easier than the ways that can be tracked, which is rarely a good thing if you want rules to actually be followed.

Personally, I think that, rather than the guns themselves, the focus of gun control measures should be on the ammunition they fire. It doesn’t last as long as a gun potentially can, and is disposable, meaning that the large number of guns already in circulation poses less of an issue, and is harder to manufacture at home due to the requirement for explosive chemicals. Further, most “legitimate” civilian uses for a gun either don’t require all that much of it (like hunting), or can be done in a centralized location that can monitor use (like sport target shooting at a professionally run shooting range).

What I would do, is put a very restrictive limit on how much ammunition a given person may purchase in a given year, and only allow exceptions to that limit if the person can provide proof that an equivalent amount of their existing allotment has been fired, returns old ammunition for exchange, or purchases the extra at a licensed range that as a condition of the license must monitor patrons and ensure those bullets are either fired or refunded before the shooter leaves.

To be fair, potentially addictive or not, I wouldn’t support a ban on social media either. The practical requirements needed to effectively restrict access to information in the modern age (both porn and social media being examples of information) are such that I generally view the cure as worse than the disease, so to speak, and view the least bad option as being to just give up on legal restrictions and just deal with the consequences instead. Addiction is harmful, but most consumers of such information aren’t harmed by it, and restriction inherently requires monitoring and removing internet anonymity to a degree that I find unacceptable.

Does the rule in question even apply to end users? All I had heard of it was that it put some kind of requirement on the website itself to identify people, which a person seeking out a noncompliant or foreign website presumably wouldn’t be the one violating?