Just because it’s generally possible for the bladder to rupture before the muscles give out, it’s certainly not impossible. A myriad of conditions or even just genetics can lead to a physically weaker bladder.

I think it’s a bit bold to say that absolutely 100%, no exceptions, that the muscles will always fail first. Even if that’s true 99.99% of the time, there’s just far to much variance in human bodies to rule it out, I would think.

Depends on how you define AI to some degree, but yeah. Protein folding has basically been solved in the past few years with neural-network based AI systems.

Nah, I read Mrs Frisby. They mostly just go chill on a farm when you make genetic super intelligent rats.

Baldurs Gate 3?

Seems like a great way for me to harvest a bunch of hashes to pull down to my GPU rig and crack offline.

Sure, I agree that it’s a stupid idea from an effort vs reward perspective. It’s at best unnecessary.

But your initial position was that it couldn’t be done without being easy to prove that it was a fabrication, and I think you’re wrong about that.

I think that they are more than capable of doing it in such a way that it’s wholly word-vs-word, with no forensic evidence pointing to it being doctored. And the idea that they would do that is outlandish enough that most reasonable people would assume the post was legitimate and that the “offender” was lying about it to try and deflect blame.

It’s the classic, "No, I didn’t post that list of porn search terms to my Twitter! I was hacked!! Totally somebody hacked me and did that. Wasn’t me at all!!” But in this case it’d be something that was a pretext for the government to arrest them.

Sure, but then it’s a question of narrative not proof, right?

Because the response from X would just be, “we aren’t sure why Mr so-and-so didn’t/couldn’t immediately delete the post, but we froze it in short order because we believe the fact he would post such a thing is a matter of public interest, and we refuse to let him sweep it under the rug.”

Yeah, he could say that he posted something completely different and X changed it, but how do you prove it? Everyone would just assume it to be a lie trying to cover their ass after posting something terrible.

Not saying this is at all likely. Just that it’s possible.

And this assumes they notice it was doctored immediately anyway. Most people don’t verify that the post is correct after hitting “submit.” A good 90+% of people would probably never notice if the text was changed post upload.

You could just replace the text of a post as it gets submitted. Keep all metadata otherwise unchanged. Lock the account from being able to make edits.

deleted by creator

They probably don’t have the warehouse capacity to store all those extra units. There’s a lot of logistics involved in housing and shipping 2.2mil consoles, and “just wait” can be way harder than you would think.

Probably, but if you’re interpreting user inputs as raw code, you’ve got much much worse problems going on, lol.

I will say, the longer I look at that, the less confident I am that there is any difference at all, lol.

It kind of depends on the facts and your jurisdiction. With the button, maybe? With a death note book, almost certainly not.

When proving the elements of attempted murder (or any non-statutory crime), the state has to prove both “mens rea” and “actus rea” (that you intended to do the thing and that you tried to do the thing), but when you’re being charged for something “attempted” you have the defense of “impossibility,” when the actions you are trying to take couldn’t have possibly worked.

Now, that doesn’t cover cases where you were only wrong in point of fact. For instance, buying fake drugs from a cop. But it does cover instances like using a voodoo doll.

There’s more detail on all the above in the illustrated guide to law, which is a pretty solid resource for stuff like this. Here are the relevant sections:

Actus Rea Explanation: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=261

Attempted Crimes: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=344

Impossibly Defense: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=416

I should have been more clear I suppose. I support all of the restrictions that were in place, and I think it’s bad they were rolled back.

My response wasn’t intended to say the changes were bad, but was rather in response to a general sentiment that I was seeing in the comment section. Both on this post and others when the topic of minors in the work force comes up.

My brother in Christ, I literally say in the comment you replied to that all of the protections that were rolled back (including all the ones you just mentioned) are important, and that it’s a bad thing they were removed.

Who are you even arguing against?

That’s not the only comment taking a similar position though. Just an example. I made my own top level comment to address something that seems like a more general trend when this issue comes up.

I agree. Children shouldn’t have to work to support their families.

None of the regulations that were stripped away have anything to do with that though, as far as I can tell.

So that problem exists in any world where we let kids work at McDonald’s for some spending money.

I mean, the comment literally right above mine is about how if we let kids work then they’re gonna be molested by their bosses. That has nothing to do with any of the restrictions being rolled back.

And look, I’m not campaigning against any of the protections that got rolled back. I think it’s bad they did, and would be totally for them being reinstated. 1000%.

And maybe I’m just off base. I feel like I have seen a lot of “children shouldn’t be allowed to get jobs” rhetoric of late in this context. But it’s entirely possible that most people are totally on board with 16yo’s having jobs, and what I’m seeing is just a vocal minority.

I think teenagers having a first job in highschool is an important milestone that we should encourage.

There should clearly be protections in place. I’m not arguing otherwise. But I don’t get this sentiment of it being tantamount to child abuse to let a 16yo get a job at their local movie theater after school to earn some extra pocket change.

The gospels were, while written decades after the fact, written by people who were alive at the time. It’s not really a game of telephone.

It turns out that when a guy dies in his early 30s, most of his buddies are still alive 30-50yrs later.