I don’t think that decent part of the public you talk about, I don’t think they actually exist. I think it’s like the mythical centrist voters who are waiting for the perfect centrist candidate, that don’t quite exist.
Many people have made the argument that you made, that violence doesn’t solve problems, and that’s true as long as we ignore all of human history.
Well, the letter of the law is clear enough. IANAL but it looks like there’s probable cause for manslaughter charges. We’ll have to see if the DA agrees. But that doesn’t mean a jury will convict. They’ll want to hear all of the details that we don’t yet know.
On a general level, though, I would say your position is soft. I believe that if you work a job with small children or other people who can’t keep themselves safe (people with Alzheimer’s, etc.), you have a moral obligation to keep them reasonably safe. If your working conditions are so bad that you can’t, then either blow the whistle or quit. If you don’t, everyone will blame you in the end. This is basic CYA for any job, of course, but it’s extra important when people’s lives are on the line.
This looks to be a case of manslaughter, defined by state law as if one “(1) Recklessly causes the death of another person.” For criminal liability, it really is that simple. The person who did the immediate bad act is charged with the most severe crime.
It seems you want to blame the state. Great! Talking about civil liability, you can be sure the victim’s family will sue the worker, their company, and the state, and they’ll probably settle out of court because it’s a sure win for the plaintiff.
Except the numbers that you’re talking about are radically different from the numbers they are talking about. What you’re talking about is something that was probably 10 times or 20 times the average consumption, not 3 times. You’re also talking about something where they’re actually was a clear physical danger and crimes obviously being committed.
I don’t think many people would be particularly surprised if the power company were finding people stealing power and calling the cops on them.
To hell with the Olympics. They’re incredibly dirty, they screw over the vast majority of competing athletes, and we already have professional sports organizations that feel the same need should you be interested.
Fuck the Times. Classic shit article.
You claim that no one sees how bad this is but actually millions of people see how bad it is. Perhaps more. Perhaps tens or hundreds of millions. The educators, the authors, the small website people, Wikipedia, the list goes on and on. And that’s not even mentioning the environmentalists.
One of your other claims is peculiar. You said that some of the AI promoters think it’s good. But maybe that’s deceptive. They probably think making money is good, and they would tell you that AI is inevitable, but it’s unclear if they actually believe any of the bullshit that they spout. Probably some of them do, but they would deceive themselves in order to justify their own income stream, right? Insert that classic Upton Sinclair quote.
The funny thing is that if a person can replace themself with an incompetent AI bot for your meeting, maybe your meeting was a giant waste of time!
In other words, yes this use of AI is absurd, but so was the meeting itself. Well hey, I guess manglement will always love up to its name.
Oh, he does in fact worry about user privacy as a concept, but not because he cares about your actual privacy. If you’re in doubt, ask yourself whether his company asked your permission to make use of your public or private data that they surely have obtained online somehow.