I find it hard to believe that it’s legal to buy a company, but not it’s contractual obligations. Seems line a hell of a loophole for getting out of things you don’t want to do.

people don’t need a guide when using a chat bot that tells them how they should treat and interact with it.

Then why are people always surprised to find out that chat bots will make shit up to answer their questions?

People absolutely need a guide for using a chat bot, because people are idiots.

That will be helpful, but for ducks sake. . .

Can we please get some sanity in the white house?

Moving towards becoming a shit company, you mean.

That’s why I specifically quoted that part, so if I was misunderstanding you, you could have corrected me.

On that basis, I think we are substantially in agreement.

I don’t think you can blame the prosecutors for doing their jobs (assuming they’re not breaking the rules in how they do it) under that system.

So, what did you mean by this?

Yes, I see your reply. It doesn’t address my concern in any way.

At risk of repeating back to you what you already know, your argument reads that the system is necessary, and I agree. Also, the system is unfair. I also agree. Also that people who knowingly use the unfair system to hurt people unfairly caught in the system are not responsible for the unfairness. I disagree.

At this point, we should be trying to show each other why we believe what we believe. I, for example, would talk about how seal-clubbing is unfair, even if allowed by the rules. You might argue that anything allowed must be considered fair. (or you might argue something else, if I’m not properly understanding your position) We might learn from each other. We might not.

Also, why would you bring up something that I’ve already “admitted” in your parlance and tell it to me?

Because it’s central to my own point, and context helps make things clear?

What counterpoint did I raise to this argument when it was raised before?

I saw nothing that I observed as a counter-point.

I guess sharing a view with you is “admitting” something, since this needs to be an adversarial interaction and your point of view is presumed to be the “right” one that you’re trying to bring me around to

No, as I said above, we are working on mutual communication, leading hopefully to us both learning more about the issue under discussion.

Since “admitted” doesn’t work for you, what other word would you have me use? I’m trying to convey you knowing something, and saying that something, but not framing it in a way that communicates to me that you are thinking about it the same way I am, but are instead treating it as a minor point, or once detached from the immediate point, while I find it to be critical to the immediate point.

Your point number two admits the issue, but then you end by saying that you can’t blame the seal-clubbers for clubbing seals.

I agree that it’s not the fault of the prosecutors that the system is as it is. But it is their fault when they refuse to make allowances for the system being what it is.

Why are you lecturing me?

It’s what we traditionally refer to as “a discussion.” We hone our thoughts and opinions on each other’s until they match, or until we get tired of doing so, or until we decide we do not wish to, or cannot, learn any further from each other.

Prosecuting is fine. It’s when they have all the resources, and the defendant has a Public Defender getting paid practically nothing, and has practically no time to prepare, but the prosecution come at them like they are OJ Simpson that I have an issue.

I don’t think you can blame the prosecutors for doing their jobs (assuming they’re not breaking the rules in how they do it) under that system.

I think I can, too. This smacks of “just following orders,” or “just playing the game.” They knowingly and deliberately screw people for no good reason.

I use my wife. She’s an artist, and has an eye for such things.

Agreed. With the added bonus that we have too live in the system while we burn it down. I’m not a huge fan of the idea, but then, I’m a maintainer by nature.

I have nifty tech, yes, but I also have vaccination deniers, Nazis, and my fourth “once in a lifetime” economic crises. I’m never going to buy a house. I’m never going to retire. I’ll probably never even pay off my student loans.

I personally think that, largely speaking, if imports are cheaper than local production, that’s a good thing!

I’m hardly an economist, right? But I agree with you, broadly speaking. But first covid, and now Trump round two is showing is the weakness of global integration. As long as everything goes smoothly, it’s jam for everyone. But let something screw up the logistics, or someone duck up the balance of trade, and everything can go to shit really fast. There are lots of things we can’t make here, but we rely on them. That is less than ideal.

I don’t know that tariffs are the way to address that issue, or even if it needs to be addressed at all. O do know that the way Trump is doing it is all wrong.

I’d go with “deshittification,” myself. It’s not important how or why they are shit, just that they are, and the laws in question prevent us from fixing it.

The airport tried that shit on me today. I was able to make it print me a boarding pass, though.

I’m becoming a luddite in my middle age.

I think that’s a feature, not a bug.

I’m old enough to remember them promising, repeatedly, that the nude scanners didn’t, couldn’t save images.

Joke’s on them though. They can’t delete my pictures fast enough to avoid the trauma.

Most of us are not getting richer, nor working shorter hours, nor living better than our parents. We’re past “services” and on into “parasites.”

In principal, tariffs can prop up domestic industry that is having trouble competing with cheaper imported products. In practice, this winds up being really complicated, because the world is a lot more interdependent than it was 80 years ago.