Boomies & Zoomies 📉

And also just bad humor.

He’s about half as funny as he thinks he is. Maybe less.

Same, but bicycle.

Once again, I feel like the diplomatic fallout from this is by and away the most interesting aspect of the sinking.

I too can make up numbers.

I think the most interesting part of the sinking is the diplomatic consequences, since the legality of sinking is more clear cut.

Same thing with emissions; yes a tiny number of companies do the most polluting, but they’re doing that making stuff consumers want. It’s not like they’re burning oil for the love of it.

It’s a good thing American automobile manufacturers have a wide range of fuel efficient and electrified vehicles that they can sell to the American public during oil shocks, right?

Yes, pretty much. I gotta get new jeans.

I agree; either the system needs to be more deeply embedded in the car (EVs make this easier because they must track kWh to function), or severe penalties and reasonable chance of catching cheaters.

The issue with all those means that non drivers are forced to bear the cost of infrastructure they use much less of. Ideally you’d want this tied to consumption somehow.

A good question is how many people actually dodge the mileage tax; the prevalence of cheats there matters.

I feel like the longer he does stuff that should be damaging without any apparent effect, the worse the impact will be once the bill comes due.

There are genuine tradeoffs with the former, since it increases the cost of EV charger installation and therefore slows adoption. Now you’re trading road cost for climate and emissions goals. Also level I chargers are an issue for that policy.

Having the EV report kWh is probably easier.

The bad faith quote she did to you here is breath taking.

“You’re wrong, trust me. Go do your own research, but you shouldn’t dismiss me quickly”.

What fun spin. Are you not saying we’re wrong, or what did you mean by: “In many of these cases, I would not describe the bot as "encouraging" someone to die by suicide.”

Fun how your point changes the moment you’re challenged.

Why should I? You said we were falling to media sensationalism and that our concerns were wrong, with no evidence, and ignored the clear points of others about the text of this law.

What part of this tells me you’re a serious person who I should invest the time in?

“There's a lot of media sensationalization around them. In many of these cases”

“I’m not dismissing any concerns”

Uh huh.

You’re still not engaging with others in good faith; you may believe you’re taking this seriously, but your observable behavior says no.

(Because she’s not acting in good faith)

Your casual dismissal of serious concerns is why you’re being painted as a blind advocate.

Because to be honest, you’re not really engaging in a serious way for a serious subject.

EVs were always gonna be charge at home though, so you gotta work around that somehow unless if the plan is to be on gasoline forever.

I mean, chat bots have been encouraging people in crisis to harm themselves. I think locking this down is the wise move; there’s no reason to believe that these companies will do this right.

Publicly calling the entire Modi cabinet Muslims would also be another diplomatic incident.

Depends highly on the use case.

For the SaaS that LLMs are supposedly going to render worthless, “rewrite it on demand” isn’t gonna work. Lots of old data, integrations, and client expectations that cannot be replaced willy nilly.

Also, it’s a war crime to not check if there’ll be disproportionate military casualties, even if the AI says it’s good.

(This is not an excuse, wanton indifference to civilian deaths is absolutely a war crime)

I mean, I honestly believe it did here. Mostly because Israel wants to attack a lot of stuff and is completely indifferent to collateral damage. So feeding everything into the LLM and let it spit out thousands of targets is the lazy solution.

Fun question: how does a LLM factor into Geneva conventions for proportionality analysis?

It would arguably be a defense against war crime charges if the *current* maps showed a military target, and they did a collateral damage analysis. But “whoops, old map” doesn’t fly.