The trick is scale. I suspect if an individual of reasonable means uses agents to commit crime, they will be hels accountable. A heavily capitalized startup? Not unless someone in government decides to do their competition a favor.
There are many examples of people being charged with crimes as a result of writing software, [0][1] are two. OpenAI is a bit different because they have enough political influence, and money, to openly subvert justice.
In that case the CEO had to resign because they had set up a system which incentivised this, so it was clear you couldn't just blame the individual sales-agents, even though they were technically humans
It's their site and they can do whatever they like, but it's pretty silly. If you want to avoid screens, avoid screens. Don't make your addiction my problem
I'm reminded of the type of recovering alcoholic who impetuously accuses anybody who they know has consumed alcohol of being slaves to the sauce themselves.
"Trump is your president, don't make his problems to mine. If you vote for a shit president then keep him for yourselves and don't let him escape his sandbox."
If your annoyed about someone complaining about their addiction, don't read it and certainly don't tell me about your problems when you complain about others voicing their complaints.
Get it? Your comment is just telling me what your complaint is: that you didn't want to read the article. Well then don't read it. But I don't care what you read or not read. As you don't care about others addictions.
> "I think I use screens too much so everyone should use screens less" is silly.
From my perspective, I see both statements fulfilling what you're saying with:
> I judge the person writing it because they are being silly.
You are right, telling me not to use a screen because someone else is OD'ing on screens is silly but so is judging them for it - because it still doesn't affect me. But that's only from my, a third, perspective.
I might be being pedantic but saying someone is silly because I think they are silly is silly for a third person to read because it's only my opinion without any references or background as to why this might be the case. But that might well be silly to read for a fourth perspective.
Just another reason to stop using chrome and it's related browsers.
If you don't want to hand the biggest ad company a monopoly over web-browsing, start using a gecko based browser like librewolf, zen, mullvad or firefox.
Pretty much... paranoid() seems to be the real durable() which isn't a great look for a database project.
Being able to recover a db without corruption beyound losing the last few writes is a pretty useful feature, and buys a lot of performance, but it would be better to label that clearly, as a reasonable expectation on the durable() preset would be for it to be Durable.
Those are easier in many ways as you don't need heroin or alcohol to survive and can avoid it completely
If it's hard or not is more of a philosopical question about how much free will we have as people. Statistically they're all hard and not over-eating is the hardest.
Culturally and individually we do a lot of things that probably make the food one even harder
If you drink too much, the common answer is that you need to stop drinking. If you eat too much, we are very reluctant to talk about how you need to eat less. We prefer to talk about how it's someone else's fault and how powerless we are to do anything about it, including comforting lies about how eating less wouldn't work anyway, or how being overweight isn't bad really.
Without quantifying the cost to society that someone's web-browser crashes sometimes, it's hard to make a rational case that this issue is so dire that it needs specific regulation.
I'm not sure making it illegal to sell consumer grade hardware is the boon for the people you imagine
No-one ever proposed making non-ECC RAM illegal, that's a straw-man.
Restricting risky items is standard practice for all governments. All the "use by" dates on food etc are from government regulation. The current experiments with "raw milk" shows that you can get away with flouting food safety regulations and not have immediate problems.
It would mean you could effectively legally run a cyber crime gang by turning a blind eye and maitaining plausible deniability
reply