I’m assuming it will also be more bigly compared to the other US notes?

So, same rules as cars, motorcycles, /etc…? It’s a nice idea, but in practice it just takes a few people not paying enough attention to make this fail, no matter how many wheels they have.

You may need less, but you couldn’t remove them. What about pedestrians trying to cross these streets you want to blaze along? What about bicyclists who need to merge, or perhaps are not as fast as you?

I used to live in Toronto, and have seen more than a few collisions where bicyclists think the “Idaho stop” is fine. Cars aren’t great, especially in cities, but roadways are a shared resource and the rules need to reflect that

Excellent point. All i meant was I hope that this is applied more with regard to future industries.

I don’t understand why this statement is limited to just AI companies

Zack Snyder shouldn’t be let near a film set…

And I’m completely sick of reboots and remakes.

Even if there were no cars, you’d need red lights to prevent you colliding with people just like you…

Let him go and charge him 50% of his wealth as a processing fee

This sounds like a lot of money for toilet paper…

My mind immediately went to this being censored/etc…

Either way, this article does deserve to be read

The main link wasn‘t working (at least for me) so here it is again but it‘s worth clicking through to read the article.

Tempted to buy the book now, as it sounds like a perfect reflection of everything I thought the British royal family always has been.

https://slate.com/culture/2025/08/royal-family-harry-meghan-william-andrew-entitled-book.html

They did. It was called Cadfael…

The trouble with making things idiot-proof is they‘ll just keep making better idiots

If that‘s the case, is he trying to tell us he’s also Trans or Gay, too?

We were told the cloud was supposed to be a „forever“ memory device. Nothing forgotten. We uploaded our lives to it. Then companies proceeded to gain massive benefits from our data, from profiling us for advertising to training their „AI“ models.

I am guessing the corporations have extracted all the value they can now. Those sentimental memories are now just burning a hole in their pocket. So, people, give them up as we did the commons. These poor corporations need all their compute power back so they use AI to replace as many jobs as possible.

I see two reasons. Most people that are “left leaning” value both critical thinking and social fairness. AI subverts both of those traits. Firstly by definition it bypasses the “figure it out” stage of learning. The second way is by ignoring long establish laws like copyright to train its models, but also its implementation which sees people lose their jobs

More formally, it’s probably one of the purest forms of capitalism. It’s essentially a slave laborer, with no rights of ability to complain that further concentrates wealth with the wealthy.

Maybe he was busy that weekend, being peed on by Russian prostitutes?

I feel for the CBC - We all know they are underfunded, but a comparison with the BBC is a little unfair. That is funded mostly by the license fee. No one in Canada will pay that on top of cable fees, but I guess that’s part of the corporate freebie to Bell/Rogers/et al.

The only beef I have with the article is that the CBC really isn’t any of these things the article cites. It’s news coverage is poor at best and it’s original programming is lacklustre. We do not need any more adaptations of Anne of Green Gables and nor do we need any more hokey Sitcoms (though I did like North of North)

As a taxpayer, I really do want CBC to succeed. I just don’t how it can in todays media landscape.

I concede this is complicated, but i think we can all agree that paid lobbying groups are a cancer on society.

Paid is by definition anyone paid to do the lobbying. Corporate is definitely harder to define, but let’s say you’re only allowed to lobby on behalf of your own organization (or self)

And, better yet, let’s make every single lobbying effort public - Times, dates, people involved, and the subject raised (but perhaps not the outcome). Good legislation should happen in the open