sixsevenrot
Replace 3.js with an engine that embeds physics, ask it to do test fly-through through each city and fix inconsistencies and let's then compare the results.
What is the number of non-gamblers that started gambling and ended up in ER and would not have eneded up in ER if gambling wasn't available?
- Escape sandbox
- Reproduce itself
- Find a way to run a financially profitable business (maybe with a meat and bones puppet somewhere in-between)
- Setup or buy a social network
- start manipulating public opinion on that network to support legislation allowing AI to
* operate businesses
* setup legal entities
* purchase weapons
* donate to political parties
* setup private armies
* you get the idea
It's a very fine line, between authoritarianism and the freedom of someone (whatever their mental state/ability is) to chose to not have a permanent place to live, while going through a difficult or promising phase of life. See also "The Pursuit of Happyness"
A significant percentage of the polish population participated in what is labled today economic migration.
They went Germany, Ireland, UK experienced an influx of migrants taking up all the low pay jobs.
But that was before the Russian bots took over the news on the internet and Russia-sponsored extreme right parties entered the parliaments. So the political effect from the migrants was roughly equivalent to their impact on pop
Think of:
West Germany, Japan, South Korea, Kuwait, Baltic States, Balkans
It's just that the problem is not the trading or betting side, the problem is the information producing side.
E.g. imagine he placed a bet that Maduro would get shot in is left eye and die.
Same goes for the congress. Them making money is by far a smaller issue compared to the havoc they can cause trying to make a few bucks on their crazy bets.
Children who are smart enough to get access to a given vice without getting caught are more likely to be mature enough to be able to cope with that vice.
In your example it's obviously the round tree trunk that produces the dull sound.
1) Addictive design of many social networks (doom scrolling et al.) 2) Privacy & age verification
On 1) most parents would support a legal limit on digital media use by age. But it's not a realistic requirement. Next best thing is to outlaw social media that results in addictive scrolling behaviour. Treating it the same way as smoking is not ideal, but no better solutions have been proposed. Many people on HN wouldn't mind if FB, TikTok and Insta were treated the same way as cocaine. I.e. only available for a lot of money to people who are happy to break the law.
On 2) there are ways to implement technical solutions, that would allow the government to provide a privacy conscious service that would allow businesses to check if someone is 16+ or 18+ without collecting any other information. These services can be gamed. But that's not the point. A 14 year old could become addicted to cocaine and we wouldn't usually blame the policy for it. The problem is the government tries to solve problem 1) now, while the solution for 2) is being discussed.
Again, a law that limits social media use for under 16 year olds is necessary. But so is a toolset that would enable a plausible age check, and limit the desire of FANG (and their Chinese competitors) to target minors.