191–200 of 254 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well considering how ineffective the War on Drugs has been - is that really a great analogy?
> considering how ineffective the War on Drugs has been Relative to no war on drugs? Who knows.
Just a quick Google search g estimates that less than 3% of drugs are intercepted by the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I, and I believe many others, do hold him responsible for it. However, I do not think starting there is a good idea: your progress in other areas would stall until that crook has been dealt with.
Especially after you have already seen what your friend has already done for four years
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> considering how ineffective the War on Drugs has been Relative to no war on drugs? Who knows.
Has there ever been a single person who wants an illegal drug that couldn’t get one because it was illegal? Just a quick Google search g estimates that less than 3% of drugs are intercepted by the government.
I always wanted to try specific two, but first cannot be had in the safest form because of the specific precursor ban, and all of them suffer from an insane (to me) risk of adulteration.
In twenty minutes I could probably find 10 "reputable" shops/markets, but still with 0 guarantee I won't get the specific thing laced with something for strength.
Even if I wanted pot (I don't, I found it repetitive and extremely boring, except for one experience), I would have to grow it myself (stench!) but then.... where I find sane seeds (healthy ratio CBD to THC)?
Similarly, I wouldn't buy the moonshine from someone risking prosecution to make and sell it. It's guaranteed this risk is offset.
So ... I can't get what I want because there's extremely high chance of getting hurt. An example being poisoning with pills sold as mdma - every music festival, multiple people hurt. Not by Molly, by additives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or it'll end up like California cancer warnings: every news site will put the warning on, just in case, making it worthless.
I just came across this for the first time. I ordered a precision screw driver kit and it came with a cancer warning on it. I was really taken aback and then learned about this.
It's odd that legislators seem largely incapable of learning from the rich history of past legislative mistakes. Regulation needs to be narrowly targeted, clearly defined and have someone smart actually think through how the real-world will implement complying as well as identifying likely unintended consequences and perverse incentives. Another net improvement would be for any new regs passed to have an automatic sunset provision where they need to be renewed a few years later under a process which makes it easy to revise or relax certain provisions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or it'll end up like California cancer warnings: every news site will put the warning on, just in case, making it worthless.
Yup. Or like "necessary cookies" that aren't all that necessary when it works just fine without.
I'm worried that this will lead to a Prop 65 [0] situation, where eventually everything gets flagged as having used AI in some form. Unless it suddenly becomes a premium feature to have 100% human written articles, but are people really going to pay for that? > substantially composed, authored, or created through the use of generative artificial intelligence The lawyers are gonna have a field day with this one. This…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2025/02/12/...
> The study, published Wednesday in Environmental Science & Technology, found that California’s right-to-know law, also known as Proposition 65, has effectively swayed dozens of companies from using chemicals known to cause cancer, reproductive harm or birth defects.
...
> Researchers interviewed 32 businesses from a variety of sectors including personal care, clothing and health care, concluding that the law has led manufacturers to remove toxic chemicals from their products. And the impact is significant: 78 percent of interviewees said Proposition 65 prompted them to reformulate their ingredients; 81 percent of manufacturers said the law tells them which chemicals to avoid; 69 percent said it promotes transparency about ingredients and the supply chain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has there ever been a single person who wants an illegal drug that couldn’t get one because it was illegal? Just a quick Google search g estimates that less than 3% of drugs are intercepted by the government.
Me. There are four I want. All very safe. I always wanted to try specific two, but first cannot be had in the safest form because of the specific precursor ban, and all of them suffer from an insane (to me) risk of adulteration. In twenty minutes I could probably find 10 "reputable" shops/markets, but still with 0 guarantee I won't get the specific thing laced with something for strength. Even if I wanted pot (I don'…
Ideally, trying to pass anything AI-generated as human-made content would be illegal, not just news, but it's a good start.
That could do more harm than good. Like how California's bylaw about cancer warnings are useless because it makes it look like everything is known to the state of California to cause cancer, which in turn makes people just ignore and tune-out the warnings because they're not actually delivering signal-to-noise. This in turn harms people when they think, "How bad can tobacco be? Even my Aloe Vera plant has a warning l…
Californians have measurably lower concentrations of toxic chemicals than non-California's, so very useless!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bought a piece of wooden furniture some time ago. It came with a label saying that the state of California knows it to be a carcinogen. I live in Belgium. It was weird.
Just an observation, but this California meme seems like the go-to talking point for anti AI regulation crowd lately.
What I'd really like to see is a label on original reporting. Even beyond AI, the vast majority of news is re-packaging information you got from somewhere else. AI can replace the re-writers, but not the original journalists, people who spoke to primary sources (or who were themselves eyewitnesses). Any factual document should reference its sources. If not, it should be treated skeptically, regardless of whether AI o…
A common reaction I get to https://forty.news is that the stories “need sources” which I always find funny. I don’t hear the same demand of sources from every other news outlet (I find it extra weird because all FN’s stories are 40 years old, simple to verify, and can’t push an agenda the same way). Totally agree with you: all newspapers should cite sources. What’s silly to me is how selectively people care—big outle…
Which by the way if you ever want to get in the paper that's how, it's super easy. AI will help you learn how to write in the right tone/voice for news if you don't know how.