I don’t even understand how this moral calculation makes sense in any consistent moral system.
Are you saying you approve of the genocide on adults to the point that it trumps the hundreds of thousands of innocent kids’death surplus if you choose the cancer kid?
Hahaha if that calculation worked anywhere there would be no billionaires, no dictatorships, no people would be oppresed and the proletariat would rule every country… Hell we wouldn’t even pay rent.
1 small organized group with funding and power > all the disorganized masses
Really you’re not from the US? I was so positive. Sorry for assuming
Climate change is there though. It’s not yet reached the “death by the millions” point, but that point being inevitable now, a nation could start thinking about the potential benefits from being the first to strike.
Best we can do is Modi
Of course you regulate software in the abstract. Have you ever heard of the regulations concerning onboard navigation software in planes? It’s really strict, and mechanics and engineers that work on that are monitored.
Better exemple: do you think people who work on the targeting algorithms in missiles are allowed to chat about the specifics of their algorithms with chat gpt? Because they aren’t.
Do they really? Carving into people’s flesh causes controversy? The US sure is wild.
Even if some of my examples do cause controversy in the US sometimes (I do realize you lot tend to fantasize free speech as an absolute rather than a freedom that - although very important - is always weighed against all the other very important rights like security and body autonomy) they do stand as examples of limits to free speech that are generally accepted by the large majority. Enough that those controversies don’t generally end up in blanket decriminalization of mutilation and vandalism. So I still refute that my stance is not “the default opinion”. It may be rarely formulated this way, but I posit that the absolutism you defend is, in actuality, the rarer opinion of the two.
The example of restriction of free speech your initial comment develops upon is a fringe consequence of the law in question and doesn’t even restrict the information from circulating, only the tools you can use to write it. My point is that this is not at all uncommon in law, even in american law, and that it does not, in fact, prevent information from circulating.
The fact that you fail to describe why circulation of information is important for a healthy society makes your answer really vague. The single example you give doesn’t help : if scientific and tech-related information were free to circulate scientists wouldn’t use sci-hub. And if it were the main idea, universities would be free in the US (the country that values free speech the most) rather than in European countries that have a much more relative viewpoint on it. The well known “everything is political” is the reason why you don’t restrict free speech to explicitly political statements. How would you draw the line by law? It’s easier and more efficient to make the right general, and then create exceptions on a case-by-case basis (confidential information, hate speech, calls for violence, threats of murder…)
Should confidential information be allowed to circulate to Putin from your ex-President then?
Oh yeah? And which restriction of free speech illustrating my previous comment would is even remotely controversial, do you think?
I’ve actually stated explicitly before why I believe it is a thing: to protect political dissent from being criminalized. Why do you think it is a thing?
Yeah, a bunch of speech is restricted. Restricting speech isn’t in itself bad, it’s generally only a problem when it’s used to oppress political opposition. But copyrights, hate speech, death threats, doxxing, personal data, defense related confidentiality… Those are all kinds of speech that are strictly regulated when they’re not outright banned, for the express purpose of guaranteeing safety, and it’s generally accepted.
In this case it’s not even restricting the content of speech. Only a very special kind of medium that consists in generating speech through an unreliably understood method of rock carving is restricted, and only when applied to what is argued as a sensitive subject. The content of the speech isn’t even in question. You can’t carve a cyber security text in the flesh of an unwilling human either, or even paint it on someone’s property, but you can just generate exactly the same speech with a pen and paper and it’s a-okay.
If your point isn’t that the unrelated scenarios in your original comment are somehow the next step, I still don’t see how that’s bad.
I guess let’s deregulate guns then. Oh wait.
Not everything is a slippery slope. In this case the scenario where learning about cybersecurity is even slightly hinderedby this law doesn’t sound particularly convincing in your comment.
That LLM is really pro-Macron, I wouldn’t take its opinion at face value.
The parts about defending democracy, addressing climate change, and preparing France for crises, in particular, are pretty ironic when you take into account the fact that both Amnesty International and the European Court of Human Rights have spoken up against his frankly appalling handling of the yellow vest crisis (the latter has a procedure against the French State dor acts of torture against demonstrators), that he’s been torpedoing our public health system even during the pandemic, and that his administration has been found guilty of “climatic inaction” by our own courts… The list goes on. For a while, “to Macron” in Ukrainian meant talking a lot while doing nothing. Maybe the LLM bought into the political communication.
That’s only true around landing and takeoff. For the most part their navigation relies on hybridized data from their inertial, air data and GPS, with several redundancies in place for bad readings and cumulative errors. Among all of this autonomous measurement apparatus, the GPS is the only part that doesn’t require numeric integration from speed or acceleration data to yield a position reading, and thus it is the only one that doesn’t drift over time. It’s actually fairly important, and it’s why using the gnss jammers you can find on amazon is super illegal
Well they probably know what they put in the CPUs they export to the US and Europe, so why would they?
Of course, if there weren’t any problems people would already be trying to build that shit.
Negative gravitational mass is still a theoretical possibility: nothing’s ever proven Einstein’s equivalence principle. It could be broken for antimatter for example, which could even conveniently explain why there’s so little of it (I remember reading that this hypothesis was investigated not long ago but we can’t produce and conserve enough antimatter to reliably test that mg=mi)
The second problem isn’t an issue if you use it in the vacuum and start and end your trip with classical propulsion.
In fact, the hardest hurdle I’d read on that subject was that with the most efficient warp metrics currently known, you’d still need something like 10^60J for a small spaceship or something ridiculous like that… Orders of magnitude more energy than the mass of the whole solar system.
Which is why I said it was kind of a fringe answer. The fact that physics don’t just flat out say “no” is already kind of amazing, which isn’t to say that it’s definitely possible.
One that’s on the fringe of what you’re asking is warp drives. Right now it looks like you need ridiculous amount of energy and matter that may or may not exist… But General Relativity is okay with it on principle at least
Being ashamed of our nakedness and wearing clothes to hide it is a punishment from God for eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. I guess clothes are part of the religious liturgy of all abrahamic religions…
Yes and being a woman there is also terrible, it’s a good thing they’re only slaughtering the civilians that oppress others and not the victims of oppression too.