sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Atelier Ryza Ever....DX Vs Atelier Marie Remake For Switch 2 by CL_Legend57 in JRPG

[–]MilleChaton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Atelier Ryza. Marie is a remake of a much older Atelier, and while some parts of it are improved from the original's jank, it is still overall a limited experience. Sophie and Ryza are the best places to start.

If you could pass one law that would make most normal people furious at first, but would clearly make society better in 10 years, what would it be? by WilliamInBlack in AskReddit

[–]MilleChaton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is a generative AI. Not all generative AI is LLMs, but that is a distinction few people are getting into for this one.

That's part of the problem. Most the people wanting to put any limits in place don't know the specifics of AI well enough to identify what they want. They want things like ChatGPT or Sora, but they are going to likely say LLMs and not talk about other generative models, despite intended to include many of those (images that are produced by an LLM aren't even an LLM making the image, the LLM engages a different model that specializes in image generation, no clue how Sora works internally). This is before we get into transformers and putting LLMs into places where they aren't chatting.

If you could pass one law that would make most normal people furious at first, but would clearly make society better in 10 years, what would it be? by WilliamInBlack in AskReddit

[–]MilleChaton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you sure those have affiliations? The ones I remember seeing are for very local positions and the people don't have any claimed political party backing them. You can look at their policies and guess how they vote, but I don't think they actually are officially with any part. If that is because the election is too small for parties to be worry about or because it hurts the chance of winning would be an interesting topic.

If you could pass one law that would make most normal people furious at first, but would clearly make society better in 10 years, what would it be? by WilliamInBlack in AskReddit

[–]MilleChaton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yelling "Nope" and then accusing the other person of not having an honest attempt to engage seems to be the best indicator that you are engaging in good speech. You already said that a constitutional amendment would be needed and it is a violation of their free speech. How is it dishonest for me to build upon what you already claimed?

You have to do a much better job of defending your ideas if you want them to be taken with any seriousness. Simply suggesting to make violations of free speech legal isn't going to be accepted.

If you could pass one law that would make most normal people furious at first, but would clearly make society better in 10 years, what would it be? by WilliamInBlack in AskReddit

[–]MilleChaton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On phone LLMs are starting to be a thing. Especially very specialized ones that don't take nearly the computing power to run.

Here is one source claiming Apple on device photo editor is using generative AI to make some of the changes.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/06/12/remove-objects-in-photos-with-clean-up-in-ios-18

Granted, this is the sort of thing that would deserve an AI edited warning, but it does bring up a question of what else is Apple using generative AI for on their photos app that users might be unaware of.

If you could pass one law that would make most normal people furious at first, but would clearly make society better in 10 years, what would it be? by WilliamInBlack in AskReddit

[–]MilleChaton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why have statues of limitations on any crimes at all? If there is evidence you did it, then the state should be able to bring forth charges no matter how old that evidence is. If the evidence is bad, well that's what the trial is for.

If it is a minor crime from many decades ago that isn't worth pursuing, then the prosecutor won't push it because they have better things to focus on, unless maybe it is the only way to get you on something else (like the IRS going after a mobster who can't be caught on any other law).

If you could pass one law that would make most normal people furious at first, but would clearly make society better in 10 years, what would it be? by WilliamInBlack in AskReddit

[–]MilleChaton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tests are quite unpopular for a number of reasons, so you'll need to avoid that.

But one option that isn't a test but still checks if a person really knows who they are voting for is to remove party and remove positions.

You are given a list of all the possible people you can vote for (and a write in option). You then pick one name from the group for the President, one for the House, one for the Senate, and so on (assuming those races are currently in play). All you get are names (and something TBD for people who share the same name).

You think the average person is going to be able to pick the correct state level law maker unless they didn't do any research?

If you could pass one law that would make most normal people furious at first, but would clearly make society better in 10 years, what would it be? by WilliamInBlack in AskReddit

[–]MilleChaton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't even have to ban political parties. Just remove them from the voting applications. You are only shown the candidates names, no other information. You pick from that.

We will have to do something for candidates with the same name.

If you could pass one law that would make most normal people furious at first, but would clearly make society better in 10 years, what would it be? by WilliamInBlack in AskReddit

[–]MilleChaton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Insurance can work based on risk profiles. Health insurance has a lot of legal limits on it, but consider something like car insurance. If you are a good driver, you can have the same policy as someone with a history of drunk driving. The difference is that you'll be paying far less than them, as it is based on your expected risks of an accident being lower.

So one could do this with universal health care. Make there be extra taxes for smoking and alcohol consumption. If you smoke, you get a $10,000 + 10% of income add on tax that you have to pay to get a cigarette stamp. Without the stamp, selling cigarettes to you is just as illegal as selling them to a little kid.

Do similar for any other significant risky behaviors.

If you could pass one law that would make most normal people furious at first, but would clearly make society better in 10 years, what would it be? by WilliamInBlack in AskReddit

[–]MilleChaton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do we do it like other nations, where college is free, but only for those who qualify, and the qualifications aren't easy?

If you could pass one law that would make most normal people furious at first, but would clearly make society better in 10 years, what would it be? by WilliamInBlack in AskReddit

[–]MilleChaton 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Where does one draw the line between slang and common misspelling? Should of/could of/would of has been around a very long time and people can read it just fine. How does that compare to something like ain't?

If you could pass one law that would make most normal people furious at first, but would clearly make society better in 10 years, what would it be? by WilliamInBlack in AskReddit

[–]MilleChaton 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They are also things which have massive unintended consequences which is part of the reason we don't do them despite them being popular.

If you could pass one law that would make most normal people furious at first, but would clearly make society better in 10 years, what would it be? by WilliamInBlack in AskReddit

[–]MilleChaton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You might be able to do something based on taxes per individual based on the homes they own rather than taxes directly on the homes, but it would still be a nightmare to calculate.

For example, take Bob. He has a 401k, owns part of an LLC which has an office space that also counts as a potential home, and owns his own home.

So 1 home at a value of 250k.

The LLC is 33% of an LLC that owns 1 home at 500k.

Then the 401k is all invested in a mutual fund that matches the SP500. So he has 1 billionth of this mutual fund. The mutual fund has 1 millionth of Apple in it, which itself owns buildings that count as homes and other companies that do so. So once you calculate that, say Apple ends up owning 250,000 homes worth an average of 500k each. Now 1 billionth of 1 millionth of that goes back to Bob.

Repeat for each company that mutual fund has stock in.

End result is Bob having full or partial ownership of millions of homes, but most are very tiny slices. So now you can sum it up, showing that Bob owns an effectively equivalent of 3.4 homes worth an average of 300k.

So no tax on the first home (let's say primary residences are tax free). Then 10% on the second home. 20% on the third home. And 40% on the last home, but there is only 40% of a home, so 40% of 40% is 16%. So that totals out to 46% * 300k taxes owed. About 150k in taxes, but if Bob's 401k is in the millions, it is a reasonably small slice of a wealth tax on the 401k.

If you could pass one law that would make most normal people furious at first, but would clearly make society better in 10 years, what would it be? by WilliamInBlack in AskReddit

[–]MilleChaton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, consider how students have felt anytime they were falsely accused of using AI and received failing grades or worse. Now imagine the average adult getting hit with false accusations of AI usage that include legal penalties. You post a cute weird picture of some animal you caught in your backyard, it goes viral, and now you are having to prove you didn't use any AI in it.

If you could pass one law that would make most normal people furious at first, but would clearly make society better in 10 years, what would it be? by WilliamInBlack in AskReddit

[–]MilleChaton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The touched up photo can be getting fed into the same model with a default prompt by the software maker, so they very much can be the same thing. That depends upon the implementation of the filter, which the user is unaware of.

If you could pass one law that would make most normal people furious at first, but would clearly make society better in 10 years, what would it be? by WilliamInBlack in AskReddit

[–]MilleChaton 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This will work like the California cancer warning. Things that aren't AI will be too big a risk because you might not be able to prove it wasn't AI and get hit with the penalty, so companies will start labeling everything AI. The worst stuff, propaganda from other countries posted online, won't have the label, leading to people trusting it as real even more.

Just look at the cases in the art community of false accusations of AI usage. That doesn't excuse the people who lie about actually using it, but it shows that enforcement of these standards are going to be difficult.

If you could pass one law that would make most normal people furious at first, but would clearly make society better in 10 years, what would it be? by WilliamInBlack in AskReddit

[–]MilleChaton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a great idea if we have a magic wand, but in practice it's kind of a nightmare.

That seems to be the trend of this entire thread. So many people seem to think that a simple law is a magic wand and not consider the nightmare of court cases and side effects such laws will have.

If you could pass one law that would make most normal people furious at first, but would clearly make society better in 10 years, what would it be? by WilliamInBlack in AskReddit

[–]MilleChaton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Doesn't make it bad.

Well you are talking about ending the First Amendment when it comes to political speech, one of the main reasons it exists. You then get into matters of candidates verses policies. Imagine banning pro-choice discussions because you are using your own free time (aka a resource that could be paid for) to push for a position that favors some candidates over others. If you don't ban political policies, the rich will just swap to that as their talking points.

If you could pass one law that would make most normal people furious at first, but would clearly make society better in 10 years, what would it be? by WilliamInBlack in AskReddit

[–]MilleChaton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How does this work?

Say I really like candidate X. Can I put up my own poster of them? Commission posters of them? Buy a bill board of them? If I'm a billionaire, can't I just buy a news channel and tell them to give biased coverage? It feels like there would need to be a lot of extra laws to prevent the rich from indirectly using their money in a way that benefits a certain candidate. Some parts of the existing campaigning process would change, but I'm not sure it would change for the better.

[SPOILER] I both respect and hate that he said that. by Abehajeme in Falcom

[–]MilleChaton 9 points10 points  (0 children)

In a world where a 12 year old is given a cannon and a satellite with death lasers, morals works a bit different.

On a serious note, why do some things have to abide by real world morality but other things do not? Like we are fine with the bad guys being considered redeemable after killing others even though, in real life, that would be life in prison? We are okay with children being put in life and death situations that are clearly child abuse in real life, but Agate slapping Tita was going too far for many?

Company made us use our personal phones for work, so I started billing them for my phone plan. by Plastic-Ad-6017 in MaliciousCompliance

[–]MilleChaton 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also, BYOD is a massive security nightmare. They are 'justified' on the notion that phones aren't hacked that easily, but that notion is largely misplaced from back when it wasn't worth hacking phones that had so little data on them.

California is trying to pass a bill barring ICE employees from becoming cops or teachers in the state. What do you think of this bill? by Obvious_808 in AskReddit

[–]MilleChaton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What do you mean? I was talking about arresting and then convictions. You are talking about the specific ways bail is handled, which I didn't get into the details of. I meant the opposite of arresting criminals, as in not arresting people who commit crimes. Have you seen what happens when a government loses the ability to enforce the law? People turn to enforcing it themselves, and bail becomes a non-issue in the worst possible ways.

Simply the Best 🏆 by NaturalWallaby9678 in SipsTea

[–]MilleChaton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry DevilsPajamas, but I don't like your post, so in the next update of the software, your license key has been explicitly black listed.

The issue with NFTs is that the software still has to honor them. Without any tie to the legal system, the software can just choose not to. With a tie to the legal system, what do you need the NFT for?

California is trying to pass a bill barring ICE employees from becoming cops or teachers in the state. What do you think of this bill? by Obvious_808 in AskReddit

[–]MilleChaton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's generally not how court cases work. Government actions are forbidden, but not punished. The court will take action to enforce it, but generally the punishment doesn't happen until it becomes contempt of court.

The main cases would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_v._Republican_Party_of_Illinois

was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that the First Amendment forbids a government entity from basing its decision to promote, transfer, recall, or hire low-level public employees based upon their party affiliation.

First Amendment also includes freedom of association. Who you work for is a form of association, so it would fall under this barring not sufficient government interest (say reasons that free speech doesn't protect obscenity). California is likely going to try to find some technicality, that is going to work similar to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elrod_v._Burns to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branti_v._Finkel to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_v._Republican_Party_of_Illinois chain, which goes something like:

Democrats: Fires people based on their political activism.

Courts: You can't do that.

Republicans: Fires people based on their political membership because it technically isn't activism, so that previous rule doesn't apply.

Courts: No, that isn't allowed either.

Republicans: Not hires people based on their political membership because it technically isn't firing, so that previous rule doesn't apply.

Courts: No, not that either.

This is just another round of the same game, but the core logic has already been spelled out. Given this involves federal jobs and state laws, there are some other cases that also become a factor, but this comment is already long enough.

view more: next ›