Just a silly little guy

Twilight is such a good example. First, when something is that popular, it’s automatically a bit sticky not only because of its ubiquity, but also because there is the question of why it’s so popular, especially if it’s not that good. Like what is this saying about the culture at that moment.

We don’t have any of the large predators we used to (black bears, mountain lions, or gray wolves) but still retain large deer populations. If nothing is removing animals, they’ll quickly overload the carrying capacity of the environment and have massive losses to starvation and disease that can also pass on to livestock. Human hunters replace the large predators that our landscape can no longer support.

It’s kinder to euthanize an un-releasable hawk rather than try to find it a permanent home with humans. Wildlife rehabs have extremely limited space and resources and are usually run entirely on donated money and volunteer time. Only a few are large and stable enough to care for permanent residents long-term, and those spots are few and far between.

An invasive species poses a danger to threatened native wildlife. I will admit- Australian possums are adorable. But not in New Zealand, where they’re an invasive species that eats the eggs of ground-dwelling birds that previously had no such predators. The landowners I worked with replanting native bush, all native Maori, had no qualms about setting the dogs on them.

But if you REALLY want to get vegans riled up, talk to them about the environmental cost of their food. Many vegan staples are extremely water intensive but grown in areas suffering from extreme droughts. Or worse, the human costs involved in harvesting. And both types in production.

But like the hawk situation, my favorite question to ask is this. Vegans win and all factory farming shuts down completely in one night. What’s your plan for all of those animals that will now live?

1. The court holds Google responsible for statements made by its AI, considering them Google's statements (search engines have limited liability for results in their engine as they're the words of other sites/companies/people), meaning when their AI lies/hallucinates they're liable for the defamation/harm resulting from those statements.

2. Google's defense that customers are generally aware of the lack of reliability and are responsible for fact checking was dismissed. As the court pointed out, that would "significantly diminish" AI Search's stated purpose and it can't be distinguished from Google's business practices/statements as a search tool.

3. Studies have found about 91% of Google's everyday AI responses are accurate, leaving millions of searches per HOUR with potential liability for falsehoods. 56% of correct responses weren't supported by the sources the AI listed. Both of which mean Google is now liable for a LOT more AI "errors."

4. Google was held liable for 80% of court costs in this case and this precedent is expected to reverberate around the world. This is a massive shift from the 3rd-party search provider role Google has previously played and it comes right as they've tied ALL searches to their AI search.

When you don't buy into the "think of the children" framing or think it's bad when people watch porn and look strictly into what this policy would physically entail it ends up looking like yet another extremely dystopian escalation.

They want to put OS-level software on your phone that will scan every picture you take and every message you send and every program you use before you even see it and block anything it considers "inappropriate" unless you dox yourself.

They want every phone to have spyware in it by default. That's what this is about.