I know of a guy who had his driver’s license permanently revoked because he racked up so many DUI’s. He lived in rural Indiana, and bought a moped because they didn’t require a license to drive. Obviously he did not stop driving drunk.
But also, the moped did in fact make noise.
Sigh. I wish Russia could be a better place to live. Jailing people for liking popular media is nuts by just about ever metric.
That’s wonderful. Would not that cost be better spent designing roads that deter speeding by design?
Buses cost money to run, and rural upstate New York (just like a lot of rural areas that are car dependant) do not necessarily have the infrastructure to implement them. Which is exactly why I said shuttles, not buses.
Public transit isn’t going to pop out of the ether to fix the problem so that we can just take away people’s personal property because they broke the law as if they no longer own it. Civil forfeiture is already a broken law without us making it worse for poor people while rich people continue to get a pass.
They’ll buy new vehicles. You can legally purchase a car without a driver’s license in most states. You just have to have someone who can legally drive it off the lot of deliver it. Which is simple for a rich person, but not for a poor person.
Like it could be if we were willing to spend the amount of money it would cost to build and upkeep that infrastructure. But that would also likely mean civil forfeiture of land. Because bus stops and side walks and depots don’t just show up because you want to take people’s cars away.
The cost of all that, plus the cost of implementing the ability to store or sell these vehicles is going to be problematic and more costly than the proposal, which is more fair than the alternative because it treats people regardless of the economic situation the same.
I don’t like the proposal, but I can certainly understand why it’s being proposed as a better way to fix the problem.
Is the plan to store these cars they’re seizing in your plan somewhere? To sell them?
How much is the cost of seizing and storing a vehicle? How much is the cost of building a place to house these seized vehicles?
Who pays that cost?
Where is such a facility going to be built?
Even if you did sell the vehicles, who gets the proceeds? What stops the person from suing the state or municipality for selling items that don’t belong to them?
That’s even before we think about the economic impact of these people living in a very car dependant place where that vehicle makes the difference between being able to have access to food and transportation to get to work.
Is the state going to provide shuttles to get these people groceries and to and from work? Who pays for that?
I have a lot of questions about why you’d want it to be okay to seize the property of a person just because they broke the law.
Police can and do already seize and sell assets whether you have committed a crime or not. Usually people want to end such overreach but now you’re all the sudden siding with the gestapo in order to seize people’s assets because you feel self righteous?
The math doesn’t math on this.
What if the car doesn’t belong to them? Are we going to suddenly start seizing the assets of someone who leant them the vehicle?
Much better to spend tax payer money to design and implement road features that inhibit speeding.
Especially in one of the most regulated industries on the planet.
Thank you for the “Maize Dictatorship”. It’s a hell of a phrase.
People like the murder mystery genre, and enjoy media that lets them figure things out.
Some people use that to proliferate cop propaganda.
This may be because some of the bots are using tactics that don’t show pro-ICE sentiment.
Some of them just make posts about ICE’s victims that appear to debunk something they saw online about how such and such ICE victim did such and such thing and they “defend” that victim, and other people who also want to defend that victim jump on that bandwagon, share those posts, and that propaganda, which sets the narrative and the idea in people’s minds which is what they want. It’s insidious.
To be fair, the headline is a really terrible way to say that Peacock hasn’t been in the black, but it’s less in the red this year than last year.
I buy server drives from them still. Well I did. Before everything kind of went a little crazy. But yeah they are a shadow of what they once were.
I’ve got ten rolls of duct tape that says we can mummify it since it moves and it shouldn’t.
The turtles deserve better than this.
Text to speech?
Will give you the Google search results as web search without AI but it doesn’t avoid ads unfortunately.
I like it because I can set it as a default search engine to avoid AI without having to run much of anything else except UBlockOrigin.
This works for computer web browsing.
For Firefox on mobile (or your fork of choice) you can go to your search settings and set a custom search engine and type in: https://www/. google.com/search?q=%s&udm=14
Without the space between “www. Google”. It will bypass AI search for just web search.
Please note that Google is still enshittifying search in other ways that aren’t AI related and this doesn’t mitigate that.
I think it’s wrong that they carry no liability. At the end of the day they know the product can be used this way, they haven’t implemented any safety protocols to prevent this, and while the users prompting Grok are at fault for their own actions, the platform and AI LLM are being used to facilitate it where other AI LLM’S have guard rails to prevent it. In my mind that alone should make them partially liable.
If the knife was sold to you with the knowledge that you were going to commit murder, the person who sold it to you could be up for a felony murder charge, or as an accessory.
There’s also product liability law. Meaning that if a company sells or proliferates a product without proper safety protocols in place and it causes harm that can be foreseen, they are liable.
Tumblr has been losing their mind about it for weeks. My sister keeps sending me memes I have no context for. Apparently it’s very good.
“We need to get beyond the arguments of slop vs sophistication,” Nadella wrote in a rambling post flagged by Windows Central, arguing that humanity needs to learn to accept AI as the “new equilibrium” of human nature. (As WC points out, there’s actually growing evidence that AI harms human cognitive ability.)
Going on, Nadella said that we now know enough about “riding the exponentials of model capabilities” as well as managing AI’s “‘jagged’ edges” to allow us to “get value of AI in the real world.”
“Ultimately, the most meaningful measure of progress is the outcomes for each of us,” the CEO concludes, in an impressive deluge of corporate-speak that may or may not itself be AI-generated. “It will be a messy process of discovery, like all technology and product development always is.”
TLDR: That’s not what he said and rehashing the same interview in article after article with this frankly clickbait headline is getting old.
Fuck Nadella and his AI bullshit, but could we not keep rehashing this?
Military industrial complex says “what”.