I'm against government regulation of gambling in principle but in reality, they have an uphill battle trying to convince any reasonable person that 'its platform offers “swaps” that can only be regulated by the US Commodity Futures Exchange (CFTC)'.

Do you think that a state government shouldn't be permitted to regulate gambling, or do you prefer a state government that chooses not to?

I ask because there are issues where I have an opinion, but I think the "marketplace of ideas" is a reasonable solution, and there are issues where I'm a strong enough proponent of my opinion that I would prefer to live in a world where it is federal (or even global) law.

I have very little interest in electric vehicles, Tesla, Elon Musk, etc. But I still think the Cybertruck, at least the design, looks awesome. It looked like something you'd see in the "Another World" or "Out of this World" intro cinematic.

Agreed. I see it as the successor to the angular style of the Lamborghini Countach, which far more people are willing to admit looks cool.

Both look extremely cool to me but Elon's behaviour is the only reason I'll never buy a tesla. Even though the cybertruck looks awesome but it's impossible for me to be seen in this. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd used a cybertruck in a BTTF remake

Having seen both in person, a Countach actually looks cool. The Cybertruck looks like a shitty unused model from a PS1 game.

Just because something is "angular" doesn't mean it's in any way comparable to a Cybertruck.

The cultural element is the difference. It's a suburban vehicle who wants to pretend it's a truck, exactly like the pompous suburbanite assholes who want to pretend they are rugged alpha types just because they drive a truck they don't really need: both would fall apart in a minute when faced with real problems.

The Countach was just the usual Lamborghini luxury scam, and I say that as someone who grew up a few km from the factory. Nobody cared if it was kinda crap inside, because it existed just to look like a cool car. A truck is supposed to, y'know, be a truck.

You don't see how an angled polygonal shape sold in 1974 might be more loved than the same angled polygonal shape sold in 2020?

You realize style evolves right?

That style was futuristic in the 70s. It is not futuristic anymore. A lot has happened since the 70s to change what the future should look like.

Ironically, I am finding myself thinking that all the supposedly "bland" electric cars nowadays finally look like cars from the future, simply by being normal car looking, with very slight and subtle styling accents.

Because that's what a future car looks like: Roughly the same aerodynamic profile but with electric motors. That's literally what everyone wanted in the first place, as was Elon's thesis for Tesla as more than a niche car company.

The Cybertruck aesthetic is stupid because it is literally a middle finger to what people want, as Elon himself noted.

I don't get why people are so stuck on "But it looks different" as a good thing.

It's a car. Why are you so stuck on needing your car to stand out? Why is it a problem for you if cars look the same?

I also think the design is rad.

Doesn’t the new ~flying car have similar design vibes?

For an "unwanted" truck, I sure see a lot of them on the road.

Less than 50,000 of them ever built. And didn't SpaceX and the DoD (thanks, DOGE) buy about 2-3,000 of those between them? (I think SpaceX bought a thousand).

You might see "a lot of them" because they stand out and are "memorable".

To be fair, there are a lot of car companies that don't do big volumes. Lamborghini, for instance, takes about five years to sell that number across all models.

No, but you also don't hear "you see a lot of Lamborghinis" very often, was my point - CyberTrucks are "noticeable"/"memorable", for better or worse, so they may feel more common/popular than they actually are.

It looks like something that would be fun and cool to drive around in a video game. I would never get a Tesla for unrelated reasons, and would especially not get a Cybertrunk because it's not fit for purpose, but I thought the hate for the aesthetics was overblown.

But then I saw it in-person, and it looks indescribably weird and bad, akin to the uncanny valley. The problem is that it's a real vehicle and not in a video game.

As with most marketing gimmicks, they have little to no value outside of their insane marketing.

Used resale value is around $80,000.

I kept thinking the design was going to grow on me as I saw more of them on the road, but nope. I still think it looks unbelievably ugly. I do not think it looks like something that you'd see in Another World, it looks more like something I would have designed when I was fourteen playing with Lightwave.

Personally, I think it looks like a silver dumpster.

To those that downvoted, I’m sorry my opinion offended you.

A fugitive ice machine that escaped from Motel 6

There's someone near me who has one with a white wrap over it. I see it parked, and I thought:

"If Kenmore had the wherewithal to manufacture 4wd electric chest freezers...that's what they'd look like."

...but I'm not offended by it. I think that sort of whimsical craziness is all too often missing from modern durable goods, so I'm glad it got built.

I'm even happier that its existence upset mincing, peevish little eurotwee Conde-Nasty scribblequeefs like this Wired author. If it'd guarantee him leaping off of a tall pier, I'd pay MSRP for a Cybertruck.

The point is that it was fun to make it for yourself, about anything you're passionate about. There was never a pay calculation because you did it on your own, because you wanted to.

The crimes are horrific and the victims families want revenge, that’s what life prison sentences are for. Fundamentally, the state should not be an arbiter of life and death.

"it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape, than that one innocent Person should suffer." – Benjamin Franklin

That's a founding father of the USA, talking about imprisonment. When you extend that to state-sanctioned execution... capital punishment makes no sense, as it cannot be undone.

Didn't Benjamin Franklin bang chickens? I'm not going to take advice from that kite flyer.

> In the U.S. the state has never been an arbiter of life and death. A jury of peers decide that.

In at least some US states, the jury decides guilt/innocence but the judge determines the sentences for guilty verdicts. So in those cases the jury of peers is certainly not being the arbiter of life and death.

When I served on a jury (minor drug charge), the judge explicitly told us not to think of sentencing and only to determine innocent or guilty.

Judges in the US have gone completely off the rails.

The constitution puts no limits on the power of a jury to acquit someone and it's absolutely despicable that judges have tried to usurp that authority under that pretext of following the rule of law.

If we want to make it harder for juries to acquit someone, then that should be written in the law; not invented by judges. Jury instructions must follow what the law says; not what judges want it to say.

The taxpayers. Same as they ever did, because sentencing someone to death doesn't mean they just die - they appeal, and appeal, and appeal again, and they should be able to do so because their own death is on the line, sometimes on shaky ground.

> The decision to spare death row inmates is largely symbolic in a state that has not executed an inmate since 2006, though experts say it could save millions of dollars in court costs each year. Only 13 inmates have been executed since voters reinstated the death penalty in 1978.

I'm for keeping capital punishment as an option, but it's clear to me that adjudicating it does cost more than life w/o parole.

Virtually all cases involving death penalty have a jury trial, higher stakes == higher priced lawyers, there are built-in automatic appeals, there are actually two separate trials for guilt and application of death penalty vs. one trial with a sentencing phase, etc.

do they drive a honda fit

Are you making a joking reference to Haley Stevens hiding her commenting history?

Per one of the comments above I just learned that Sceptre produces dumb TVs. I will be going this route.

Also your question is your answer.

Yeah maybe as long as everyone's doing it. But as soon as one sheep leaves the flock the walls will come tumbling down.

Where does the linked article say anything about trees? It's about water management

Trees, and their roots, are an essential part of water management. They absorb rainwater, help water infiltrate into the ground, replenishing groundwater supplies. They slow down surface runoff, reducing the risk of flooding, and provide shade and release water vapour via controlled evaporation.

...Subscription Edition

...365

.PYTHON

… Home Edition

SP3

MAX PRO

First we would have to sufficiently define consciousness

By the encyclopedia britannica:

"psychological condition defined by the English philosopher John Locke as “the perception of what passes in a man’s own mind.”

So it is impossible to prove that any being outside of oneself has conciousness, unless you compare brain scanners like they did to prove that the color blue is seen the same by everyone (same neural structures lighting up).

But... An LLM clearly can't have consciouness, as its "mind" would be the weights in the model, and the passing through it would be the data going from the input tokens to the output tokens. There is no place for the LLM to detect what is going inside and process it separately.

Unless the version 3 announcement is your onboarding point, like it is for me just now. I can go research FLUX from here, but the original poster's point still holds.