Willie

Yeah, that’s the internet for you. Anything you want to stay around will vanish someday, and anything you want gone will be here forever.

Come on, they even missed their chance to call it CreateHentAI!

Yeah, you get to pick your cat in Prism.

I haven’t seen any of these bad boys in probably over a decade. They used to be all over the place.

Steam will do refunds to the payment method used if fewer than 30 days have passed, but after that point, they’ll only refund to Steam Wallet. At least, that’s how it worked last time I checked.

Nope,

I preheat the oven consistently but don’t consistently read terms and conditions or license agreements.

I know exactly what she’s thinking from that expression.

How unprofessional.

In an elevator, or I guess a lift, what do the buttons that select floors represent the ground floor with? A ‘G’? A “0”?

Samsung’s clock application did this pretty well, where you don’t even have a reset count button until you press the button that stops the stopwatch from counting.

I’d imagine we’d see insurance invest money into making offers to providers. They’d refer the patient to a health insurance company instead of negotiating, and in exchange they’d get a large one time payout for a successful referral. This would please investors in the providers, because they’d see short term gains, and it’d please the insurance company because patients would be forced to have insurance again. Everyone (with money) wins!

We use 3 of our stove burners, and never touch the other. So for me, I guess one of mine is very lonely.

Can we really handwave away the whole Adam and Eve thing though?

If we do, then what did Jesus die for?

There’s not really any use for them. There are really no tasks they can help a normal person with in their everyday. I guess you could talk to it like it’s a person, but that’s sad, and is probably unhealthy, and you should probs just talk to a real person instead.

Now if you do some specialized tasks, like programming, but aren’t very good, I guess I can see some use for them.

I’m having trouble seeing any uses for them beyond those though.

Well, I never really thought about it until now either. Haha. Though, it was mostly a choice of apathy, since when I’m dead I won’t really care what someone does with them, I only really get to pretend that I will while I’m alive today.

If they’re not charging for my organs that get donated, then that’s pretty cool. I mean, I was given mine for free, so it only makes sense to give them for free when I’m done with them.

Of course, I live in the middle of nowhere, so whether they’ll find someone who can use my stuff before it goes bad is a whole different thing entirely.

It’s good that you were able to find some lungs.

My ID says I am, but I’m not registered anywhere else. Why did I have my ID say it? Because I felt like it that day when I renewed it. That’s literally all there was to it.

Real talk though, I almost don’t think I should be donating my organs. Why should the hospital get for free what they’re going to charge a family hundreds of thousands of dollars for?

While there’s no ‘and’ after ‘(A)’, it appears that’s the standard format for a list like this. Every list of x, y, and z in this bill is written in the same way. It seems like it’s supposed to be written like you would a list you give in English. There’s a list of conditions under which a prisoner can be transferred to a prison closer to their home when near release time, and the conditions are listed in the same exact way.

‘‘(2) TRANSFER TO INSTITUTION CLOSER TO RELEASE RESIDENCE.—A prisoner who is successfully participating in an evidence-based recidivism reduction program shall be considered by the Bureau of Prisons for placement in a facility closer to the prisoner’s release residence upon request from the prisoner and subject to—
‘‘(A) bed availability at the transfer facility;
‘‘(B) the prisoner’s security designation; and
‘‘© the recommendation from the warden of the prison at which the prisoner is incarcerated at the time of making the request.

There’s no way they will allow you to transfer to a prison that has no space for you, so long as you can fulfill both B and C, it’d be physically impossible! It’s clear they intend for you to meet all 3 requirements, just like in the segment being discussed by the supreme court in the article. There’s also like a seven item list of responsibilities the Attorney General has in the bill too, formatted with the same (A); (B); ©; … (G); and (H) format. And there’s no way they let the dude just pick which task from the list he’s responsible for. Once you become familiar with the bill’s format, it’s extremely clear how this is supposed to work.

I feel like that specific issue is pretty cut and dry, but that’s just me.

So I looked it up, and the law appears to be worded like this:

‘‘(1) the defendant does not have—
‘‘(A) more than 4 criminal history points, excluding any criminal history points resulting from a 1-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;
‘‘(B) a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; and
‘‘© a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines;’’

So let’s simplify this into English. Because the header says that “The defendant does not have” and then has subsections, we will append that idea to the start of each subsection.

The defendant doesn’t have more than four crime points

and

The defendant doesn’t have a 3 point offense

and

The defendant doesn’t have a violent 2 point offense.

Simplifying it down like this makes it seem like the way it is written is the more strict way the supreme court decided on. It sounds like the supreme court is correct in this case, but they don’t know why they’re correct, since their reason is all wrong.

Let’s look at it this way.

Condition 1 is to disqualify anyone with 5 or more crime points.

Condition 2 is to disqualify anyone who has committed any crime that is worth 3 crime points.

Condition 3 is to disqualify anyone who has committed a crime worth 2 points, but only if it is a violent crime.

So basically, they intend for a violent crime worth 2 points to disqualify you, and they intend for any 3 point crime to disqualify you as well. And they intend for having 5 points to disqualify you.

Worrying about the value of added points is missing the point of the wording of the entire set of rules. Especially if there exist crimes worth 1 crime point. There’s a whole range of crimes you can commit and still qualify.

You could commit:

Up to 4 crimes worth 1 point each.
Up to 2 crimes worth 1 point each, as well as one non-violent crime worth 2 points.
And up to 2 non-violent crime worth 2 points each.

The point of condition 1 is to put a cap on the amount of crimes worth 1 or 2 points you can commit.

I hope this helped you understand it the way I understand it.

So by putting a stamp on an absentee ballot, therefore paying the postal service to deliver it, am I committing an Alabama felony? Or are interactions with the postal service explicitly exempted from it?

If the machine can prove that it is conscious (prior to the torture, of course), I’d most likely class it on the same level as a cat or a dog. Cats and dogs are friendly critters who help me do tasks and spend time with me, and an AI would be no different at that point. They’d just be able to do more complex tasks. I guess they might be a little lower, since they lack agency, accept commands, and must follow sets of rules to decide to do tasks, unlike animals and people, who we have accepted can decide what they do and don’t wish to do.

The only other real difference is that cats, dogs, and people are individuals, with their own upbringings and personalities. Meanwhile an AI would be able to be copied, and many of them could be born from the same original experiences. If basement man copied his tortured AI a few million times, did he torture one AI, or did he torture a million? I think that’s where the real difference lies, that makes the AI less than human.

If you lopped a cat’s brain out, and were able to hook it up to the AI torture device, and it was magically compatible, it’d be a far greater torture, because there is only one cat, and there will only ever be one cat, the cat cannot be restored from a snapshot, and you cannot copy the cat. If you did the same with a human, it would be an even greater torture yet for the same reasons.

From an ethical standpoint, today I think it would be equal to animal abuse, however, we won’t perceive it that way, since it will benefit corporations for us to think that real AI are not alive and have no rights. So they’ll likely spend lots of time and money to change our perception to agree with that standpoint. We will think of them as we think of cows and pigs, where they might have feelings and such, but it doesn’t really matter, because those animals are made of tasty food.