The fundamental difficulty with regulations is that they've been written to apply the same to uncorrelated well-meaning individuals as to correlated constructively-malevolent corpos, based on some definition of "fairness" promulgated by the corpos. The things you've listed all seem pointless to you, because you're just trying to execute some small time project to make your own individual life better, not drive tens of millions of dollars of externality-producing economic activity through a loophole.
So the real answer is to reframe laws as applying to commercial operations, projects over a certain size, non-homeowners, etc. But of course the corpos cry foul over this, and would much rather you put your effort into working to repeal all regulations so they can operate without constraints.
Pragmatically, this is why I live in an area where if I wake up and decide I don't like a particular tree, it can be on the ground within a couple of hours. And most of that time is eating breakfast.
And presumably you are going to keep failing, because you're not trying. You're handwaving the subject away looking for some bright red "lapse" rather than seeing the everpresent contours.
I've come to see this type of indignant/defiant language as a tell that someone is refusing to consider an issue (ie ignorance).
I've considered the potential harm versus the realities of medical science and study.
Starting on epileptic mice versus humans seems like a reasonable starting point.
You're failing to identify any actual ethical issue beside a blanket problem with animal testing. Which I can partially agree with as there's plenty of needless abuse and inhumane treatment.
First, you seem to be confusing me for the commenter who originally raised a concern.
Second, you're not really addressing my comment, rather just responding with a more polished version of your previous comment deny any issue.
My point is where are your own ethical boundaries here? For each aspect of the situation, what would have to be different to run aground of your own ethical concerns? In order to say that something is on a specific side of a line, you must know where the line actually is, right?
Third, and this doesn't apply to you as an uninvolved commenter per se, but it definitely applies to the original "experiment" - the onus is on the person performing it to demonstrate how it is ethical. A xit that reads like a kid buying some fancy equipment and playing around to see what might happen, "18hrs in front of my laptop coding and coordinating this", and a "licensed vet" as an accountability crumple zone does not inspire confidence!
I would say I did address your comment, I just don't seem to be spelling it out in a way that you would prefer. Which is to say I'm not sure how you can't extrapolate my ethical boundaries and considerations from my previous comment.
> potential harm versus the realities of medical science and study
Oh don't worry, they made sure to have a human acting as an accountability crumple zone: "A licensed vet gated every irreversible step and held a physical kill switch to stop the AI agent."
Tell me you've never needed significant healthcare without telling me.
It's never about "ambulances". The bureaucracy will happily call an ambulance for you, as it ends their involvement and absolves them of liability. And the ambulance company is happy to show up, as it's a large billable event. In fact when seeking/obtaining complex medical care, this is one of the failure modes you have to constantly swat away!
As for interacting with the bureaucracy to obtain real care, it's gotten to the point where it's easier to get something done calling a large bank. Navigating the medical bureaucracy is probably on the level of calling Comcast-Warner (although I haven't had the misfortune of having to deal with them for a decade, so I'm sure they've gotten worse as well).
Even before "AI", my standard experience is a multi-level phone tree, multiple mandatory announcements before you can even proceed, then waiting on hold. That merely gets you to an answering service who types a ticket into the computer system. Then you wait a ~day for a nurse to call you back (if you miss answering this call, return to step 1). Then the only urgent appointments are invariably with "nurse practitioners" who throw pre-canned advice at you, as they don't really know what they're doing. That's four layers running interference to keep you away from an actual doctor, who you will finally get to see in a month for a fifteen minute appointment, if you are lucky.
The dynamic is that corpos are chartered/registered by states, both domestic (operating in the state its chartered in) and foreign (operating in a different state than where its chartered).
Federal regulation would make a mess of the idea due to preemption, eliminating the state regulatory option and leaving us with just the federal options of a Constitutional amendment or impeaching/replacing the Supreme Court and repudiating their openly corrupt precedent (decree).
This right here. If we're going to oust this anti-American Flock and its less prominent "competitors", then we need the police to realize they're not friends, but rather foes. Extra work arresting motorists with frivolous/incompetent warrants from distant cities, civil suits for violating rights where the police department is left holding the bag, spending budget that could instead be spent on actual policing, defiant disobedience when they're asked to take the cameras down or make changes, making your city more likely to be a flashpoint for federal action, etc.
Of course this is in addition to state-level political action against flocks and other types of surveillance to preserve our freedom uniformly. The point is that we want the police lobby to be neutral or even on our side, rather than having to fight against them.
The problem is many departments profit off being able to pull people over for bs reasons so they can try and catch them for other crimes. False positives gives them additional reasons to pull people over and find drugs or probation violations which is the bread and butter of many police department's and court's funding.
It sounds like your electric company is straight up corrupt, which would indeed be a barrier to electrification. For reference, the main demand reduction my municipal electric company does is to send text messages on hot days asking us to use less air conditioning.
Commercial electric rates have long worked that way. The cheap coal power plants that were used commonly 40 years ago did not like to throttle down and so it made sense. Of course things have changed and Peak has a completely different cost structure now and so it no longer makes the sense it did 40 years ago but
Sure? I understand the fundamental problems here, but it's a residential electrical company's job to solve them as best they can with things statistical modeling and buying capacity ahead of time - not to pass them on and leave customers over a barrel!
I do understand that mine lands on the opposite side of not being the most economically optimal, compared to say variable time of use rates. I was just illustrating how out of wack the explained pricing structure is. At that point, why even bother upgrading from a 60A service?
If this is really a modern competitive cost structure with nearly free incremental electricity (great for running computers etc!) then the obvious answer is to get some batteries rather than contorting your life around the POCO's hyper-discretized schedule. But it reads to me like an electric company just putting customers over a barrel because it can. I would have to know the actual $/kWh incremental rate to think otherwise.
I don't quite understand what you're saying, and this seems like a recipe for talking past one another. In general of course there are many ways to individually mitigate a market failure, but this doesn't make it any less of a failure. And as described, OP's rate structure seems like the product of a market failure.
They themselves said that such charges aren't common from other providers, and that their POCO acts with unrestrained monopoly power to tack on a bunch of arbitrary fees. My only point was that this is part way to not even having electrical service in the first place, and is exactly the kind of stuff that needs to be reigned in if we want more things to be electrified.
I don't know where OP lives or his situation. I know a few people have chosen to put their house on a rate such as he lives in because by managing of themselves they can get a better better deal overall. Those people though do have a choice and they could go on the slightly higher constant rate per kilowatt hour price that most residential, customers have.
I chose to interpret it as his choice, but if - as you seem to think - he has no choice and this is how his electric is billed, I would agree that his utility is stupid.
OP doesn't sound very happy about the arrangement to me. If it were consensual due to saving money from running a bunch of steady heavy loads (a bunch of computers etc), I wouldn't expect words like "nauseating" but rather more of a recognition that intermittent heavy loads are incompatible with something they've chosen for another reason.
No those are just "moderate" opinions of every day regular people, who were previously being "canceled" by "the far left". (/s)
The times I've had the misfortune of reading replies on xitter, even on what should be technical topics, they have consisted of extremist maximalist takes with others chiming in to call them "based" [0]. Whatever its "algorithm" is, it definitely leans into the outrage farming / Balkanization project, regardless of the bots.
[0] which from context would seem to be shorthand for "freebased", as in smoking crack, despite apparent intent to the contrary
Do you know how the Enterprise is this huge ship that carries a huge population, but yet very few people are seen working in each department? Yeah, the rest of them just stay in their bunks doomscrolling, subsisting on Doritos and soda from the replicator ("Diet Coke, cold"). A significant part of government provided basic housing is on starships, because it gives their working crews a sense of importance. When a ship is in range of other ships, space stations, or planets, transporter technology is used to seamlessly reallocate the population. The residents would notice if they bothered to look out their windows, but they mostly don't. It's also why the rest of the ship is so austere - the working crew knows that indulging base material desires is the fast track to becoming a bunk dweller.
reply