Or don’t. Rust is famously toxic, so why do that to yourself?

Well, Pepe is a popular meme format among gamers, so it makes sense that the hateful subset of gamers would also use it. That doesn’t mean Pepe is hate speech, it just means people use it for hate speech.

Then ignore those articles.

Same with literally any country I guess.

The important thing to me is the ratio between relevant, quality content and hateful crap. For me, Steam has a lot of high quality stuff and not a ton of hateful crap, meaning if you don’t go looking for it, you probably won’t see much. I mostly stick to game reviews and guides, and I can quickly skim over it and find what’s relevant.

There are plenty of sites where hateful crap is everywhere, and I avoid those. I’m honestly okay with skimming over the bad on an otherwise good site, because that’s just how I’ve grown to interact with the internet. I’d rather do that than have an overly censored internet.

I live in Utah, and whenever I go north (Idaho, Oregon, Washington) or south (Nevada or California), I get tons of bugs. If I go west (e.g. Lake Tahoe), it gets absolutely covered.

I wish… Whenever I go on any road trips, my windshield is almost completely opaque with bug guts by the time I stop for gas. There are still plenty of them out here.

Sure, and they absolutely should exist, but there’s no reason to have network fees be relative to the size of the transaction, because processing $1k vs $1 is the same amount of work.

I don’t think the DOJ/AG are looking into it, but they should.

And straining at gnats isn’t going to get us there. AI uses <1% of global energy usage, it’s not what’s causing the problem. Much bigger contributors to CO2 pollution are personal vehicles, commercial vehicles, and industry (esp. producing plastic crap), not data centers.

Sure, and the solution to that isn’t murder, but holding them accountable to things like contract violations or unreasonably complicated contracts. That’s an issue for the DOJ/AG, not vigilantes.

Would you have said the same about early computers, when they were less effective at solving problems than a human?

The problem isn’t AI, but the crazy investment into hype, which results in companies forcing it where it doesn’t belong. Total energy use of data centers (not just AI, all data centers, meaning pretty much every website) is about 1% of global electricity, which is about half the energy use of home electronics. I don’t know what share of that is AI, but I would be surprised if it’s even half of the data center usage.

Yeah, it’s wasteful now, but just like early computers, it has the potential of being very effective. Some areas I’m interested in are medical diagnosis and improving accessibility of technical documentation. Doctors and nurses already use algorithms for diagnosis ie. flowcharts), and studies indicate that they make medical professionals more effective, and AI can add to that. I don’t think it’s nearly as useful for the average person especially due to the hallucination problem, but targeting non-experts can help refine things for experts.

I also generally avoid AI because I’m concerned about not catching hallucinations on things I’m unfamiliar with, and wasting time on correcting things on things I am familiar with. However, I see promise in it, so I’m interested in following developments in the field.

Running for office wouldn’t have stopped the CEO

You’re right, and neither does this extrajudicial killing. Nothing changed in insurance policie, and nothing will likely change. But running for office has a much better chance of helping people in the future than murdering a CEO.

And yeah, insurance companies spend billions lobbying government, and that’s why running for office yourself is valuable, you can refuse to accept these donations. You need to find your own powerful group to get you elected (maybe labor unions?), because that’s how the game is played, but there are options if you’re laser focused on one type of policy.

however just

Justice is the lawful administration of law, and extrajudicial killing is, by definition, unjust. Depending on your moral code, I also argue it’s immoral, because it’s only moral to kill to protect innocent lives, and retribution isn’t protection.

If killing this person was likely to actually change company policy, I could see it as moral, but there’s absolutely no way a reasonable person would think that. This was a crime of passion, not of justice.

No, investigations by the various 3-letter agencies.

Killing a CEO certainly doesn’t solve anything…

I’m still waiting for that killer app too. That doesn’t mean the whole idea is a waste of time, it means it’s new and hasn’t really found it’s niche outside a few novelties.

And that’s because it’s not his job to do so. Not every problem needs to be solvable by any given individual.

If he really was that passionate about the problem, he should’ve run for office to get into a position to solve the problem, or at least joined forces with some group that pushes for causes he believes in. Or started a business to compete with those businesses he disagrees with. Those would all be proactive steps he could take. Killing a CEO doesn’t solve anything, another will take his place, and surely he knew that.

Best way to get out of jury duty is to mention nullification.

Punished, sure, but not murdered.

Hey DM, can I get a reroll?

I don’t mind AI, I just don’t want it shoved down my throat.