I think this tips it over the edge for me to switch to Firefox

Goodbye, sweet prince

I don't think the comment was appropriate but I also don't think it was really necessary to cancel the tour over it. It was a joke made in poor taste. Worth an apology? Sure. But this seems like an overreaction.

The video, which includes a prayer for Trump

Fucking excuse me?

Wrong colour immigrant

I wish lawmakers had some balls on this subject. If there's gambling, they should have to register as a gambling company and comply with all the other restrictions on gambling advertisements in each jurisdiction.

As someone who works in the field of criminal law (in Europe, and I would be shocked if it wasn't the same in the US) - I'm not actually very worried about this. By that I don't mean to say it's not a problem, though.

The risk of evidence being tampered with or outright falsified is something that already exists, and we know how to deal with it. What AI will do is lower the barrier for technical knowledge needed to do it, making the practice more common.

While it's pretty easy for most AI images to be spotted by anyone with some familiarity with them, they're only going to get better and I don't imagine it will take very long before they're so good the average person can't tell.

In my opinion this will be dealt with via two mechanisms:

• Automated analysis of all digital evidence for signatures of AI as a standard practice. Whoever can be the first person to land contracts with police departments to provide bespoke software for quick forensic AI detection is going to make a lot of money.

• A growth in demand for digital forensics experts who can provide evidence on whether something is AI generated. I wouldn't expect them to be consulted on all cases with digital evidence, but for it to become standard practice where the defence raises a challenge about a specific piece of evidence during trial.

Other than that, I don't think the current state of affairs when it comes to doctored evidence will particularly change. As I say, it's not a new phenomenon, so countries already have the legal and procedural framework in place to deal with it. It just needs to be adjusted where needed to accommodate AI.

What concerns me much more than the issue you raise is the emergence of activities which are uniquely AI dependent and need legislating for. For example, how does AI generated porn of real people fit into existing legislation on sex offences? Should it be an offence? Should it be treated differently to drawing porn of someone by hand? Would this include manually created digital images without the use of AI? If it's not decided to be illegal generally, what about when it depicts a child? Is it the generation of the image that should be regulated, or the distribution? That's just one example. What about AI enabled fraud? That's a whole can of worms in itself, legally speaking. These are questions that in my opinion are beyond the remit of the courts and will require direction from central governments and fresh, tailor made legislation to deal with.

That's kinda what it comes down to for me though. Can you EVER be 100% sure? Even if you're 99.5% sure, odds are sooner or later you'll execute someone who was innocent. And in my opinion that one single lost innocent life means the practice is unjustifiable.

I wonder how many people who disagree with me are pro life.

Screw these guys. Whatever your position on the matter it's not the tourists themselves who are culpable, but the national and local government for allowing their economy to be so reliant on tourism.

It doesn't justify assaulting and harassing people in the streets.

Barcelona is not the only city in the world that attracts a large number of tourists. Many cities attract more. Yet Barcelona is the only place I see with so many of these xenophobic nutjobs.

It is as insane as it sounds. Yes, alternative dispute resolution is perfectly commonplace and indeed in many countries - such as mine - there is an expectation that you attempt ADR before bringing a matter to court, unless there is some reason why you couldn't.

That's fine. That's not an issue.

Disney claimed that due to the terms and conditions of the Disney+ video streaming service, anyone who has or had a subscription agrees to resolve any and all disputes with Disney through mediation and they therefore waive any recourse through the courts. For absolutely any form of dispute, even a wrongful death.

That is absolutely insane and evil to even attempt and there is no justifying it.

Am I going mad or does she look a bit like Elon Musk?

Least psychopathic lawyer

So this is the long overdue "no u" from Putin's warrant from the ICC I guess.

I'm sure that judge will be very upset about not being able to visit Russia.

As an outsider looking in, I've seen a lot of footage of rallies and events (on both sides) that are just absolutely crazy to me. Almost dystopian. People with painted faces, all kinds of merch, hollering and shouting and cheering like it's the X Factor or a rock concert or something. You see people being interviewed outside the events and it's like a festival in the background. It's really, really bizarre. We have problems with our politics here too but not like that. I can't believe that all of those people are ACTUALLY that passionate about any policies themselves, it's just vague culture wars nonsense with a bizarre personality contest as a proxy for it.

As I say, I'm not trying to act superior. My country has its share of problems too, just a very different sort.

I don't know anything about the guy but it must take some serious balls to do a job like that in Mexico City.

Reasons I'm too squeamish for contacts #407

This is actually quite an interesting case study for jury selection / vetting. The motive clearly relates to political views about the healthcare industry that affect every single American other than extreme outliers. It's therefore pretty impossible to select a jury that can be entirely neutral. Because no matter how politically unengaged they are, it still affects them.

Arguably, the most neutral person would be someone who hasn't interacted much with healthcare as a citizen. But healthcare issues in America start straight away from birth, because the process of birth itself is a healthcare matter for both mother and child, and there's no opting out from being born. That's only not the case if you're foreign born or from a very wealthy background, but you can't have a jury comprised of just them because that's not representative of the American public.

I wouldn't be surprised if this drags on for a long time before any trial even starts. In fact, I'd be suspicious if it doesn't.

Bit of an empty threat when he can just upload his consciousness into a different copy of his current model.

I mean, it's not easy to be a judge. Doing good by making sure the law is applied correctly and fairly is precisely the POINT of them. (Obviously not to these "people")

Ironically, as history seems to constantly prove, a large proportion of people advocating for this are repressed homosexuals themselves, and have deep rooted internalised shame from their culture that they are compensating for. What a shame they refuse to embrace the inevitable social shift that accepts them for who they really are.