If it’s gonna be Stephen King then it’s gotta be by Frank Darabont, imho.

The opposite of sweet tea.

In the US, backup cameras are mandated by law as a safety feature. It’s not an “add-on” or perk like some automakers try to imply.

Same with front end collision avoidance cameras/sensors. Those need to be in all cars manufactured for the US market by 2029.

You quoted a definition, but a definition that has nothing to do with how it is used legally, historically, or socially i.e. useless

I’m sorry but this statement is flat out wrong. Perhaps reading about terrorism will clear this up.

I’d also recommend the US legal definition within federal law.

That’s why the meaning of words tends to change over time.

Yes they do, which is why I posted the modern definition and not the original from the French Revolution:

1. An agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.

Accusing me of getting “worked up” is a good way to discredit everything I have to say, though. Cute.

My intention was not to discredit you, it was based on your defensive language. You seem to take the disagreement personally.

I’m going to disengage now. As-salamu alaykum.

A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals; frequently in an attempt to coerce either a more powerful opponent, (such as a citizen or group targeting a government), or conversely, a weaker opponent, (such as a government, or even an internal citizen or group, being targeted by a larger government).

I already quoted the literal definition of the word. I’ve made no reference to how I personally use the word. I’ve never actually had pccasion to call anyone a terrorist.

You seem to be getting a little worked up about this. Perhaps it’s best to agree to disagree here.

There we disagree. If I called your comment a sandwich it doesn’t change the meaning of the word. In fact, people would rightfully call me out for misusing the word.

People need to start doing that for words like “terrorist” or “socialist” or “communist”. Language is frequently co-opted by bad actors. Each of us has a choice to fight back against it or to give in to it.

It basically just means “designated enemy of the state”

That’s how it’s used but that’s not what it means. We seem to fundamentally agree; my point is mostly that “terrorist” is a noun that we, as people, have allowed to become a proper noun with a universal adapter.

It’s become a buzzword that gets thrown out to delegitimize opposition of any sort. I figure this is where you’re coming from when you say it has no meaning because we’ve allowed the word to be cheapened.

A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals; frequently in an attempt to coerce either a more powerful opponent, (such as a citizen or group targeting a government), or conversely, a weaker opponent, (such as a government, or even an internal citizen or group, being targeted by a larger government).

A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals

That describes the current US government perfectly. It describes the Israeli government and military perfectly. It’s actually pretty spot on with a lot of government action at various points across the globe.

Once citizenry react to a government “that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals”, I think we’d agree, they are not terrorists but in fact anti-terrorists.

It has meaning, but that meaning is subjective. “Terrorists” are just people acting in a fashion to cause intense fear.

To you and I the data centers people are terprists because they cause intense fear to everyday folks over resources, rising costs, quality of life issues etc.

To the data center people everyday folks might be terrorists because they’re afraid people will stand up where their governments won’t.

I’m guessing ”terrorist” will trend up as more people start to understand what the fa means in antifa.

That is basically a non-answer and doesn’t mean anything.

You struggling to understand a statement doesn’t make it a non-answer.

The reality is AI is classified a national security priority and therefore has the US govt to prevent it from running out of money.

Your conflating the current technology AI and AI companies.

but ultimately its the willingness of people/companies to use the AI that results in the win.

Ah, you’re one of those people.

There is no way it doesn’t get propped up by the government at this rate.

There absolutely is a way. It starts with people hold their governments and representatives accountable.

The AI companies can and absolutely should fail. AI itself isn’t going anywhere. That Genie is out of the box.

My thought is the AI market won’t crash because especially in data engineering and devops there is an inherent worth.

Did you see Anthropic’s IPO filing? The company is upside down and there’s so much commingling between 3 or 4 companies that when one goes the rest will topple like dominoes.

What won’t crash are the billionaires at the top. See, they’re going to cash out with piles of money and leave the index fund investors (e.g. the every day person) holding the bag.

If you think Trump is the problem your not paying attention. He’s just a puppet of his oligarch masters and they are feeding far right movements all over the globe.

He’s the American symptom of a global problem that is humanity’s responsibility.

I don’t. Nuclear bombs are very non-discriminatory weapons.

He’s everyone’s problem.

No, no, no, haven’t you seen the posts all over? He’s America’s problem and it’s their mess to clean up.

There’s absolutely no global impact on the rise of far right ideology and it’s certainly not trending up in pockets around the world.

The puppet regime that is the Trump administration isn’t an indicator of a larger global oligarchy problem at all.

I think you’re underestimating ebikes and scooters

I think you’re underestimating humanity and where the technology may evolve too.

Like OPs example, the Romans thought lead cups were fine but how many 100s of years later do we balk at that because of what we know now.

I wasn’t referring to this exact moment but taking the long view of potential outcomes.

From a much more anecdotal perspective, I regular walk my dogs at a dog park with a bike trail alongside. The number of throttle controlled? e-bikes has gone up and pedal bikes have gone down. It also seems like 1 in 4 or 5 are tricycle types.

Then I’d imagine you struggle daily with the English language.

I agree that intensive animal farming is bad and humans need to reduce their meat consumption to be more in harmony with nature but it’s not inherently bad.

Not particularly. I do question nonsense statements though.

I guess I’m imagining a Wall-E type situation. As the technology continues to advance humanity could, over time, become over reliant on it.

Similar to the impact of the rise of the car in America over the last 100 years, but on an even greater scale due to the pervasiveness of technology.