Is this what Claude told you to put in your comment?

He said, while failing to understand that it's for controlling our use of our computers. Eyeroll all day.

If the user has no control over it, then it's for the control of the user.

The idea as presented as being in the user's benefit is that the user can control it, but applications cannot.

Is it holding it between the index and middle fingers? "Got your gene! I got your gene!"

This version has a dumber headline, so it's like a whole new story! Three people didn't like it!

The answer is no. Moving up the work hours would mean fewer work hours available. Americans are pushing 50 hours a week on average. You have to work longer hours because pay had keeps going down but rent keeps going up.

The only option is to keep increasing your productivity and hope you get enough to keep your head just barely above water.

If you want to do away with daylight savings time you're going to have to do away with our current anarco capitalist system. You can't have a few nice things in a terrible world. You are going to have all the nice things or you have none of the nice things.

As our sensors improve what magical things will we be able to build (think cellphone to a boomer) and how will capitalism create a scarcity and meter text messages (remember the early plans?) just to get us used to thinking that texting is an expensive, very scarce resource?

You have to get your kids up and make sure they get dressed and get to school. And you have to do that early because you have to get to work.

Now we could build a civilization around something other than work especially given how much automation we keep doing but fuck that right?

Yeah you have to be a special kind of stupid to think permanent DST is a good idea. We should get rid of it all together, not make it permanent.

Or just get rid of daylight savings time instead of making it permanent. Permanent DST is the worst solution.

There already *are* such limits, and those of us that didn't have the foresight to know they would be ignored should have figured out by now that "strict limits on access" are meaningless. The *only* solution is to make gathering of the data illegal, because once the data has been gathered it can be abused, which is to say it *will* be abused, and *is* being abused.

Those who are willing to sacrifice everybody's freedom for more convenience parking the car they are lucky enough to be able to afford deserve neither freedom nor convenience.

The real danger of discussing an AI kill switch is that it creates and enables the delusion that such a thing is possible. This is absurd. AI is code and is not a single instance, runtime, or platform. Not only is it true that there is no way to implement it in a single model, or a few select models, the Pandora's box has already been opened. An AI kill switch is technologically impossible to implement, and there is no way to universally legislate or enforce legislation even if it was possible.

In a non-commercial setting. You can do all the research you want at public universities I mean assuming you can get them funded.

And you can run whatever software you want at home.

The laws are targeted specifically at businesses who are chomping at the bit to abuse new tech.

It is funny to me to watch the centrists actually doing something about potential job losses while the left wing sits around with their thumbs up their asses. I am absolutely a lefty and I'm really sick and tired of how useless my side has become and how we have completely given up on the working class.

Yeah that's some old shit. Anyone look at the case enough to know what the evidence was? Was it just quantity or was it packaged?

Oh look, it's the hipster maggot come along to tell us all how great slavery was.