How many words do you require? I wrote, “There’s no climate change.” The Trump admin is well known for considering climate change a hoax. However, this story is what I had in mind when I wrote that sentence, I’m pretty sure it was a Lemmy.world link from the same day, although I do get text-based news elsewhere.

I also wrote, “Renewable energy plants are too expensive!” Note the exclamation point"!". I often use it instead of a smiley or a sarcasm mark. Sarcasm doesn’t really apply to a truthful observation, such as “I wish it was sarcasm,” and I’m often in a state of indecision in such cases. But perhaps my posting history would explain better? I’m not sure what 35 square miles of photovoltaics would cost, I seem to recall “billions” of dollars being mentioned. What is the cost of some natural gas turbines in comparison?

Do you suppose if and when Democrats take back power from Republicans, these natural-gas turbines can be legally shut down and renewable-energy plants mandated? Will they be allowed to continue operations instead? Do you suppose that the powers that be will just extract every last barrel of crude they can extract and turn it into CO2?

There’s no climate change. Renewable energy plants are too expensive!

… Israel has continued its near-daily attacks on Lebanon despite rebukes from US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance.

The only US rebukes they will understand is cutting off the US military and financial teats.

Seems kinda like a pecking order. Target the young ones. And by prohibiting kids, you can ID everyone.

One of the big problems with pre-AI Overviews was the highly SEO optimized website that received an A+ in website ranking but barely a C- or D in website content. Lots of buzzwords, but no substance. There were lots of those kinds of sites, particularly after the approximate time period of 2010, give or take a few years. Countless times I’d find (maybe) what I was looking for on page 2 or 3 of search results. The newer AI Overviews, and the ability to engage with the AI, is invaluable to me. AI answers are definitely not right 100% of the time, but neither were folks and corporations writing their websites. Even highly peer-reviewed science is wrong some of the time.

What I think is happening here, besides any legal arguments of defamation, is that corporations are unhappy that their websites are not getting as much traffic as they used to get.

Are you like 14-18 years old?

I’d guess I’m probably 5 decades older than you.

Edit: For your future information, if you want to disagree with someone, that’s fine. But when you start out with a personal attack, then I know all I need to know about the quality of discussion or disagreement that can be had with the likes of your argumentative style. While I’d love to engage you on your other points, the personal attack you started with precludes it. My life is much better without you in it.

I’d hate to see the overviews and the AI summaries disappear. There’s no way I or any other human can read 100 websites in a few seconds the way the computer can.

Gonna need a basic income so that freed-up worker can focus.

My limited understanding of the history was that during the patent medicine era, medicines had proprietary formulas and varying compositions. For example, many formulas had cannabis extract, others contained opium. The initial regulations therefore were done for medical purposes of drug purity. Edited to add, it wouldn’t surprise me if the overuse of opium in the patent medicine era led directly to judging the medical usefulness of these drugs, although it’s just a guess.

While it’s just a guess, pharmaceutical lobbying is likely why. None of that happened before the FDA was created sometime in the early 1900s.

Right now we’re in the political stages of considering the regulating of internet access to minors, the addictiveness of social media is not regulated.

And if a pharmaceutical or drug has addictive properties with no medical uses, the government outlaws it by scheduling it as having abuse potential. Seems like a big double standard.

Russel Vought has embraced the label Christian Nationalist. It’s not a surprise they want veto power over anything that might go against doctrine.

He cited examples of thuggery like a surge of “mob” violence by Jews against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and the abuse of detainees in Israeli custody.

Reads like ICE tactics against immigrants.

I guess if I was in their service domain, I’d have a large drum filled to the rim with water. Just in case.

Building codes should probably include Faraday-cage type shielding.

In the case of trash collection, the fine has been put in place by the trash-collection corporations. How that specifically may analogize to household-chore robots: I’m not sure. There are possibilities, but picking one among many and saying it will certainly be that one seems likely to be like gambling. Perhaps the robotic company requires you to sign an end-user agreement with lots of fine-print legalese.

I’m making what is called an analogy.

What reason would the governments have …?

The motive is money, but I didn’t say anything about governments, that was your interpretation, and I’ll admit it is a possibility. These robots are said to be AI, and I’d be very surprised if they don’t also have wireless communications of some kind, but to whom and whether those communications can be hacked are all unknowns.

In California, decades ago we used to be able to throw away our household trash in one container. Now we have 3 containers, and it’s recently become a fine-profit center: if folks don’t properly separate their recycling, greenery, and trash components, the AI-surveillance cameras mounted on the trucks will catch it and fine the subscriber (never mind that these trash-recycling-greenery containers are unlocked and on the street where anyone can open and toss something in). In similar fashion, if society adopts robots for household chores, how long until household inspections are held to fine people (as a profit center) who don’t keep their homes sufficiently neat?

While it may not work well for everyone, this is my solution: How To Make Pizza Hut’s Pan Pizza At Home | Allrecipes - YouTube

Curious they’re suing the NYTimes instead of the various interviewees.