Honestly, I think AI is the next internet. It's a little hard to harness, it's widely misunderstood, and it has obviously incredible potential, and could lead to developments we can't even begin to predict today. Anyone who tells you they know what it (or the world) will look like in a few years is full of shit, but it's undeniable that AI has progressed at a breakneck pace for a couple years now, and though it is in it's infancy, AI is already a transformative concept, and who knows what is yet to come.

I'm old enough to have been enthralled with Doom in the early 90's. And my current lawnmower requires me to control most of its movements for the duration of its activities. So this sounds like a great idea. Maybe I just want a regular, non FPS-capable, autonomous robotic landscaper, but running Doom is an aesthetic choice I'd pay a couple bucks for. Just look at the variety of mowers out there these days - some already have some ridiculous capabilities, so why not?

So we complain about "career politicians" because they serve too long, AND we assume that no politician ever had a career or made money before getting into politics. I'll refrain from opining on the first part, but the second part is just incredibly wrong in so many cases. A LOT of people go into politics already having made some money. How many people who run for statewide office, or in Washington, partially fund their early campaigns out of pocket and claim to be the best candidate because they were successful in some other business? The answer is too damn many. Most wealthy or moderately-wealthy politicians aren't wealthy because they are corrupt, they did other things first. And don't you need to retire as a multimillionaire these days to retire with any security?

Nothing like an extra side of hot piping ignorance and inconsistency to make a terrible argument look almost reasonable on the surface.

Yes, we can't forget that America has ICBMs capable of targeting every major Chinese city and military installation, so of course China feels a need to catch up. And that's not to mention the fact that The Good Ol' U-S of A likely has the greatest intelligence gathering (and spying) capabilities the world has ever known. Heck, we even spy on our friends enough to get caught sometimes.

Where we should draw the line, I don't know. You don't want to lose an arms race, or find out later that you were drastically out classed in the spy game when you thought you were on par, so how much is enough, or how far should you take it? I don't believe war with China is imminent because we have no desire to go to war with them, and they have no desire to go to war with their biggest export market when they are doing quite well. But I'm the optimistic type who believe major military powers usually behave rationally regarding matters of war, which is why I can't see Russia nor the USA and the West getting involved in a wider war any time soon. In each case, no side has enough to gain by going to war, and too much to lose.

I've seen a lot of chatter recently about this Arc browser, so I went to their site, potentially to give it a try. They wanted my email so I could get in line. What the hell? No, 1000 times, no.

Yes, there's a growing body of evidence that this can work. It won't do everything for you, but it can open the door to a healthier life, and maybe provide the impetus for you to walk through that door. There's no magic elixir so we MSUT investigate anything that promotes positive outcomes and reduces harm.

I'm very interested in the potential therapeutic benefits of psychedelics, specifically psilocybin, LSD, and MDMA, since they have shown promise in limited trials. I's also love to see more research into dissociatives like ketamine and especially dextromethorphan in regards to treating depression. As with psilocybin being used to treat alcoholism, there is some evidence that they can offer some relief from depression with infrequent use. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that DXM can act as a sort of reset button for depression, without requiring daily use and without the dubious side effect profiles of many antidepressants. Since it is available OTC I'm surprised we haven't seen more research on this.

Yeah, it's such a shame that people with a terrible "affliction" (there. I used a different but entirely applicable term just for you) are able to get the care they need, if they choose to. Typical AC comment - inflammatory BS. Nice try, troll.

The key is to use psilocybin in a therapeutic setting, not just to see trippy shit. Like many substances, it can be used in a medically useful manner or it can be abused. Fortunately it has a low abuse potential and is not physically addictive, but you have to use it in the right way to achieve what we are talking about here. All tools must be used properly. I'm a big proponent of medical marijuana. I also support it as an alternative to other recreational substances, because its potential for harm is so much lower than most. If you must indulge and change your mental state, marijuana is a great choice, and mushrooms are known to be safe, when used with care. With opioids, of course it doesn't take much to get into a bad situation. Mushrooms are not for regular use in the same manner of other recreational drugs, but if they can diminish your need to get fucked up daily, that's something worth exploring.

Crappy compared to some, yes, but it's still not quite as socially acceptable to pass a joint around at a social or family function as it is to stock a fridge with beer or provide wine or cocktails. And of course if you factor in all the harm alcohol does to people's bodies, their families and social relationships, and in some cases anyone who comes into contact with them, it looks even worse. Yet in many places (my state for one) it is sold on every corner. I understand the appeal of a cold beer, a glass of a crisp sauvignon blanc, or a gin and ginger ale (believe me, I sure do), but I can't help but think society would be much better off without any consumable alcohol at all. From a harm reduction standpoint, marijuana and various psychedelics are much less detrimental and can offer many of the same benefits. Cannabis is becoming much more socially acceptable (thankfully, for the medicinal properties, if nothing else) but psychedelics are still taboo in most settings. They're garnering a lot of attention in the medical community though, and I find them to be fascinating. I enjoy various forms of alcohol very much, but I'm convinced we'd be better off without it, and more "soft" drugs.

Um, Homeland Security has no jurisdiction on British soil, and the Crown is not beholden to the US constitution or your own personal interpretation of it. Sorry, everything you say here is completely irrelevant to the case and article in question.

We do such a BAD job of protecting privacy in the USA because our definition of protected speech is so broad as to include things that limit the privacy of others, but that's a topic for a different thread. The founding fathers should not be expected to have foreseen everything that would come after them, so we need to acknowledge that they knew this and put forth a legal system that includes mechanisms to adapt and change over time. I'm a huge proponent of free speech, but I don't believe that recording others is always necessarily protected "speech," the constitution doesn't take everything into account (which is why it can and does evolve), and strict constitutionalists infer intent where it is not clear and creatively apply literalizations.

Does English law look at audio recordings differently than video, like US law does? That doesn't fit any definition of wire tapping that I've seen, but yeah, the range/location of the motion detection and the audio were certainly significant in this case. Had it just been simple 24x7 video monitoring that didn't specifically alert the gentleman to the lady's movements, the judge would have been less moved to find against him. And a doorbell cam or cams just capturing visitors coming up to the house probably wouldn't have been very problematic. A case like this doesn't fit neatly into settled case law, so matters like this are still open to interpretation.

No, don't draw ridiculous conclusions to go along with your inflammatory language. They just didn't bother to read any further than the summary and are basing their judgements on the absolutes of the US first amendment, which doesn't exist under British common law. Our constitution is a great thing when it comes to protecting us from government overreach and politically motivated attacks, but it needn't run afoul of common sense or common decency. Sometimes, I think, common law interpretations, considering the nuances and intricacies of unique cases, and rectifying unintended consequences go where our more strictly codified laws unfortunately can not.

Did April Fool's Day come early? As someone with HR experience, I find this entire concept to be ludicrous. Allowing someone to buy a job is ethically dubious, of course, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to hire someone who had to, rather than picking the best candidate based on their resume. Interviews are an incredibly important process of the hiring process, no matter how uncomfortable they may seem. It is often less about the speed and perfectness of an answer than how an interviewee handles themselves. Personal interaction is still relevant in many jobs.

By the time you interview someone, you should already know that they are technically qualified, or you haven't done your job. Interviews are less about screening in the best people than screening out those who aren't a good fit for the company, and being able to choose between otherwise equally qualified candidates. A resume or a pay-for-points system can't tell you that one candidate is a joy to be around and has the presence necessary to do certain client-facing jobs, or if someone is an abrasive loudmouth interrupter with terrible hygiene.

Or Waymo could just get their shit together and learn from repeated undesirable events.