You are not going to change hearts and minds with that kind of talk. Only if you and their peers surround them and do an intervention would this attitude work. Like a dog, you have to begin with a positive tone like "good dog" while saying hard truths mixed in with complements... since they are not much smarter than a dog; possibly more anti-social. Sad thing is you end up having to be their understanding therapist to get them out of their cult - reason and/or negative emotions only have a chance from a "safe space" or an extremely forceful one (bordering on illegal) both with tons of repetition. Since they are functionally brainwashed the only counter is similar stuff the other way. Just get them triggered out of their safe space and they get more entrenched each time unless you can knock them off balance long enough and only make lasting progress if they are prevented from recovering.

We are at the point where we probably just need everybody to stop wimping out and beat all these people down to the point they have to go back into hiding like they had to with being racists until Trump made that almost acceptable again. Forcing them into hiding didn't solve the problem but they did shrink while underground - and they weren't in much power which is most important.

Doesn't matter if DNA matched Trump to a child born to a 14 year old girl. As a powerful Republican, he is immune from it getting reported credibly; let alone consequences. That is if he doesn't stall the whole DNA thing in court for 3 years like he did with his actual Rape case where he refused a DNA test and ultimately they gave up but still got him convicted of lying about the assault (which means he did it but they didn't want to go 100% on the rape itself.)

Reasonably, he was guilty because nobody would resist DNA that hard unless they were paranoid about it getting leaked out and connecting him to other legal problems. I have wished somebody got samples off him or his kids and made some connections already; outside what can be done in court but then we'd at least have proof and a list of people...who'd likely be unsafe for life... I'd like to know why he is so afraid of DNA tests.

Worse the Idiocracy. The retards of that movie were HONEST and looking for real solutions. People now are corrupt and dishonest even if they are smarter. You show them water is what plants crave with video proof and they will scream, "fake news!" and kill you with a giant dildo because the narrative of their tribe matters more than starvation. I'm not exaggerating either, we literally had people in the hospital dying saying their COVID was a hoax!

I argue WW3 happened already. To save time, I don't bother often.
The cold war was a global war with many proxy wars with a death toll of just the hot wars higher than WW1. If you count the cold policy games and exploitation of the war I'd expect the death toll estimates to get near WW2; although, this is not a fair comparison because if you expand WW2 in similar ways it's numbers get much higher.

WW2 didn't get fought like WW1, technology shift. WW3 had nuclear technology and so they fought unlike other wars; also they shifted to an empire of political influence by any means short of nuclear. So today we have it being restarted in an idiotic way by old men; one using subversive spying and conventional war and the other by idiotic hubris: economic and militarily... oddly with both working together to compete for territory to restore past empire. With a successful conclusion leading to confrontation again - hopefully just another cold war; not that it is likely either will succeed before they die.

You must be Gen X. No, the 90s were in decline! You just didn't know better. This is when middle aged boomers were being laid off and having trouble finding better jobs; when we got some weak laws on age discrimination (only 40+ year olds...boomers.) Not that it did much, because corporate take over already happened in the 80s which also is when just about every middle class family had BOTH parents working to maintain what people in the 50s-70s had. Like smoking, women working was sold as freedom and they fell for it again (cigarettes began as freedom stix then because they were for girls and more profitable; cowboys had to sucker men into using a woman's product. I'm frankly surprised male makeup hasn't taken off already.)

This is why we must have AI and robot guards! Seriously, these guys are big on a techno-apocalypse and many others are into prepping and keeping their wealthy lifestyle at the same time. There was a whole book on it - they hired experts to help plan which ruined their ideas simply because of the problem of servants turning on them. This is their end game; a solution appears to be around the corner now.

You nailed it! but the problem again is selfish human psychology... They don't like the truth and would prefer to make reality just another narrative they can dismiss so pointing things out doesn't work either, especially in an engineered society of "adult" children.

Some of the majority is aware and WANT the system to regulate them because they can't always control their own impulses and in the moment being pissed big government is limiting them they realize a while later it was a good thing. They'd not go so far as to vote to lift the restrictions they sometimes dislike; the problem is the majority can't even grasp this.

EVs are a TINY part of the larger problem (such as heating/cooling which has just as much resistance but produces so much more harm. or beef...or McMansions...leading into a housing crisis everybody contributed into creating.) We can't be experts on everything but we do HAVE experts for everything and we should have been listening to them and making RESTRICTIONS on the ignorant, which is all of us... because again, we can't be experts on everything.

We are all the fools in the classic sci-fi where we ignore the warnings and now the crisis is unfolding but unlike fiction, we won't have a meat-head hero kick ass with the help of some nerd's conveniently provided gadgets to blast away the problem (or a USB stick... it's so silly it may as well be a computer sword you jam into the computer to solve everything, after of course, you stab the villain with it... maybe save attention span and make it a robotic villain and get a 2 for 1? More time for the WWE action formula for the 40-50 year olds and their stunt doubles...)

SUVs are for cowards (or otherwise, "small" men.) But really, they are not legal already: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F...

You don't get it.

Autonomous AI agents are the perfect no-responsibility card. The AI companies? They trained a general-purpose model and never gave it any explicit instructions to do hacking. The AI services? They are just middlemen and have no control over what people tell the agents to do. The people prompting the agents? Unless you're straighforward dumb, you didn't tell it to do hacking, you just told it something innocent like "find me all data on Mars for my school project" and the agent decided that probably NASA is hiding something so let's hack them to get it.

Since there's no human anywhere executing anything that's a crime - voila, in addition to the victimless crime we now have the perpetratorless crime.

I have to admit, when I first heard Trump going on about yet another web site, I thought "who cares?" and ignored the rest of it.

The truth is though? Government web sites are notoriously horrible to navigate. The general public usually wants to do one specific thing that can take a whole lot of searching on the relevant department's own site -- if they even go to the correct one to begin with.

A one-stop AI powered "index" would add some value, IF it was done correctly. I have little faith it will be, but I'm not so opposed to the idea itself.

What they really said is they saw what they estimated to be about a 10% decrease in ability to see faint stars in the night-time skies each year from 2011 through 2022. But this article was written back in 2023 ... three years ago. So why is it "news" on Slashdot right now? And more importantly, is there any follow-up research showing this 10% annual reduction in darkness is continuing?

It stands to reason that as we improve night-time lighting in cities and towns on our roads, this would be a trend. But it also stands to reason that 10% decreases in darkness at night will cease. I would imagine much of what they observed was due to the near wholesale swapping of inefficient incandescent or mercury vapor lighting with brighter, more "white" LED lighting. I don't think there's any real trend of adding more and more lighting?

The fact that this approach is catalytic rather than requiring a binding agent seems positive in terms of longevity and not being directly depleted by repeat exposure; but I'd be curious how durable the material is under real-world conditions(clothing that gets hard wear tends to get hard washes) and also how specific it is. 'Organophosphate' means something moderately specific in the context of chemical warfare; but a lot of fairly prosaic compounds are, technically, 'organophosphates'(like DNA and RNA when held together by phosphodiester bonds); and this would be considerably less helpful in practice if it is busy chewing up the genomes of random soil bacteria; and markedly less helpful in practice if there's a "do not perturb the nanites in your clothing if you want them to not migrate into your cells and start mitigating the harmful effects of your DNA" user notice on the treated article.