I truly hope I am.

Laws are also why mixed use development is very rare in modern US cities. Which was also in large part due to car manufacturers wanting people to drive to their jobs.

Laws can be influenced by corporations through lobby groups.

Sure, but why would they, if they can drive so much safer than humans? This is a genuine argument, and it isn’t as bad as it seems, on its face at least. Why limit cars to a human speed, when they have superhuman control?

Of course, the counter is that it would make walking and cycling more difficult, but that never stopped car companies, who have always lobbied against both groups at every turn.

They may also kill the whole concept of pedestrians.

Self driving cars are (ideally) safer, so can potentially drive faster.

However, because of that, they can’t brake as quickly, so that may cause a change in infrastructure from zebra crossings to pedestrian bridges, and it may cause the end of the regular, unfenced sidewalk.

Faster cars means more wear of the tires, so more particulate matter in the air around roads, so shops on those roads would go out of business, because who wants to go shopping with such bad air around?

For a more detailed version, there is a brilliant YouTube video on the channel Not Just Bikes about self driving cars.

Absolutely. He applies his professional framework (lawyering) onto areas where it doesn’t fit (science), and the result is obvious.

Not necessarily. The naturolistic fallacy exists for a reason.

More like ban it outright. Anything that is generally seen as safe, but with some caveats, gets RFK jr. to foam at the mouth about how dangerous it is.

Tolerance is, by its very nature, limited. That’s the whole point.

It isn’t some sort of ideal, like empathy, where more is better (although there are people, mostly bigots, who want to convince us otherwise), instead it is the result of our moral and ethical positions.

We tolerate what we think is ok, we don’t tolerate what we think isn’t ok.

Next thing they’re going to start building giant tanks, maybe named after small rodents.

Good faith compliance is impossible.

Go to the restroom that is not compliant: violate the law.

Go to the restroom compliant with your assigned gender: police is called because you don’t look like your assigned gender.

The spirit of the law is to prevent trans people (and anyone else who is not strictly gender conforming) from existing in public spaces.

Why investigate anything?

To make sure, and remove plausible deniability.

Depends largely on the training data. If it’s completely trained on music he owns the copyright to, more power to him.

1. We are told not to judge, but to leave it to Him to judge, but we can point out the sin in our brothers and sisters so they may hate it and turn away from it, and love is not letting others fall into sin, it is pointing out their sin but only so they themselves may hate it and turn away from it, not to mock shame them. And if a father loves his child unconditionally, and the child wants to leave the house and run off into the forest to be devoured by the wolves, can the father stop them? Bind them as a slave? No.

But that would make the bolded part unnecessary, yet you seem to say that it is good to do it.

Judging doesn’t just mean being negative about something. It means telling someone that what they do is bad, or wrong.

Which is what you describe as not judging.

If I had to hazard a guess, a futuristic city based on cover art for '70s science fiction novels, several of which are on my shelf.

Absolutely. One of the reasons why replication studies are so valuable, yet they rarely get any news coverage.

Speaking of rights:

Most AI is trained on copyrighted material without permission.

So if not having the rights to a photo is holding them back, then that should also hold them back from one of those AIs, they don’t have the rights either.

Do you mean the people on stage, or the trophy?

Because I am torn on which looks more evil.

Work in theater, can confirm.

Israel won by being allowed to compete.