Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lord Shonus]

Not politics, exactly, but close.

Mass casualty event in Baltimore - a container ship struck a major bridge, which has partially collapsed. Multiple vehicles reported in the water.

[Frumple]

It's... not exactly a bright side, but apparently it happened around like one in the morning, so traffic was pretty light. There's definitely some fatalities, but at least from what I can tell it's possible it's not even double digit, and likely if it is, it's fairly low in them. It's. Not a good thing, but if the timing had been different it could have been a lot worse.

... though it's definitely going to be a political issue fairly quickly. From what I've picked up the repercussions are going to be shutting down one of the largest ports in the US for weeks at a minimum, possibly for multiple months, on top of obviously enough stopping traffic through the bridge (which is one of the major transit veins for baltimore). The economic impact going to be pretty damn substantial.

[Maximum Spin]

I... did I read the same news as the rest of you? From what I saw, there was only a road crew on the road (which was maybe closed, but reports are unclear), a total of eight people, of which, last I knew (having read about it at noon), two had been rescued by midday (although one was hospitalized), for a total of six (maybe seven if that guy is unlucky) probable fatalities. Not exactly a "mass casualty event", and no commuters were involved.

Of course, yes, the impact on the port and on transportation is another story. It's probable that the bridge itself will essentially never be rebuilt, and who knows how long the port will be closed for, meaning that anything happening to road traffic could effectively isolate Baltimore from world trade. In things like "food" for which cities have a prompt need.

[MorleyDev]

From the BBC News articles, it seems they managed to stop the civilian traffic in the two minutes between when the mayday was issued and the collision happened, but there was still a road crew on the bridge at the time of collision and six of them unfortunately likely perished in the water.

[Lord Shonus]

I... did I read the same news as the rest of you? From what I saw, there was only a road crew on the road (which was maybe closed, but reports are unclear), a total of eight people, of which, last I knew (having read about it at noon), two had been rescued by midday (although one was hospitalized), for a total of six (maybe seven if that guy is unlucky) probable fatalities. Not exactly a "mass casualty event", and no commuters were involved.

When the news was initially reported, it was believed that twenty or more cars had gone into the water with their occupants. Authorities were fearing dozens of deaths.

[hector13]

Tennessee legislates for chemtrails.

The bill forbids "intentional injection, release, or dispersion" of chemicals into the air.

It doesn't explicitly mention chemtrails, which conspiracy theorists believe are poisons spread by planes.

Instead it broadly prohibits "affecting temperature, weather, or the intensity of the sunlight".

Does this include greenhouse gases? ‘Cause it sounds like it could include greenhouse gases.

I really want someone to abuse this for greenhouse gases.

[Maximum Spin]

Tennessee legislates for chemtrails.

The bill forbids "intentional injection, release, or dispersion" of chemicals into the air.

It doesn't explicitly mention chemtrails, which conspiracy theorists believe are poisons spread by planes.

Instead it broadly prohibits "affecting temperature, weather, or the intensity of the sunlight".

Does this include greenhouse gases? ‘Cause it sounds like it could include greenhouse gases.

I really want someone to abuse this for greenhouse gases.

The BBC is a garbage site that doesn't deign to link to the sources, but I managed to find the actual bill text (this is an amendment, but it's an amendment that replaces the entire thing and it was adopted, so that's what it says now), and I can confirm that it does not. It only applies to injections, releases, and dispersions *for the purpose* of affecting temperature, weather, or the intensity of the sunlight; secondary side-effects are not covered.

There was also this other funny amendment that makes it about Sasquatch, though, but it wasn't adopted.

[Starver]

The BBC is a garbage site that doesn't deign to link to the sources, but I managed to find the actual bill text (this is an amendment, but it's an amendment that replaces the entire thing and it was adopted, so that's what it says now), and I can confirm that it does not. It only applies to injections, releases, and dispersions *for the purpose* of affecting temperature, weather, or the intensity of the sunlight; secondary side-effects are not covered.

There was also this other funny amendment that makes it about Sasquatch, though, but it wasn't adopted.

(The Sasquatch was already mentioned, so you clearly didn't read the article thoroughly enough.)

The point of the report is perhaps more about how a certain debunked lobbying 'group' were apparently the prime motive force behind the whole matter, given an eagerness by the controlling part of the legislature, and the frank amusement by actual credible environmentalists (it doesn't say this here/elsewhere explicitly, this is just my takeaway from it, but the same section seems to be the type who wouldn't listen to actual science about climate-changing events. For whatever reason.)


But it depends what you read into such a short summary, I suppose. (There was a more nuanced treatment on the radio, which you won't have heard, here I'm just sticking to what you did see.)

[Duuvian]

I thought this was kind of funny

https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/05/nyc-officials-are-mad-because-journalists-pointed-out-the-citys-new-ai-chatbot-tells-people-to-break-the-law/


meanwhile

Schumer says US Senate can make progress on TikTok bill
https://www.reuters.com/technology/schumer-says-senate-can-make-progress-tiktok-bill-2024-04-05/

[Starver]

I thought this was kind of funny

https://www.techdirt.com/2024/04/05/nyc-officials-are-mad-because-journalists-pointed-out-the-citys-new-ai-chatbot-tells-people-to-break-the-law/

Stupid AI. Everybody knows that there are mafia offers that you can't refuse...

[Frumple]

... would it actually be breaking the law to shop around for protection services? Like... sure, the racket itself would be breaking the law, but stuff like debt collectors (and, like, vast swaths of employers in general with how prevalent wage theft is) also do so regularly and we don't tend to consider hiring those to be criminal. That'un should probably be in the clear on some level, y'know?

Actually eyeballing the article, some of it's much more obviously illegal, but there's also, well... truth from the mouth of babes, so to speak. Chatbot might not be speaking the de jure legal code but it sure looks like might be speaking the de facto one

[Starver]

Not actually inowledgable about criminal economics, but... An offer from Group A to be protected from 'fuss' would first of all be based upon protection from Group A. If they offer more than that then it'll start with random street-crime ("we'll let you thugs do your thing, everyone's young once, but not against [certain people and businesses] or we start by introducing your kneecaps to kinetic energy in soms form"), and may not go up to turf-conflicts with rivals like Group B (because that's already a Group-level conflict, and an externality to any particular racket/vendor 'agreement').

Group B being open to protect from Group A (and the 'allowable background crime' and surely from Group B[1]) ought not to cost less than Group A, except as a loss-leader (or more marginal gain) as part of a larger manouvre to oust rivals A (where refusal to switch to B, when asked, could be more costly than it was just being skimmed by A) that really doesn't give the 'protectee' much of a choice. Worst case: between the devil and the deep blue sea (perhaps in concrete diving boots, no helmet).

There's other deals to switch to that might be cheaper. If you know an actual honest (and effective) cop, then maybe you can clue the authorities in on the whole thing (safely, hopefully at arms'-length from any traceback) and dismantle the threat for you and everyone else. (Though watch out for that criminal power-vacuum being filled again, as well as 'reverse informers' leaking your involvement in the process, however minor.)

Knowing a guy (whether or not you know you know) who happens to be be a vigilante with a whole-body-suit/golfbag-of-hockeysticks/parasitesymbiote may be the cheapest option. You may get a bit of wear and tear on the premises when they happen upon "their favourite convenience-store/deli/barber/neighbour being terrorised" and decide to do something about it, but if they're that effective then they're gonna be (or start) cleaning up the whole 'hood (maybe just the street, could even be citywide if they feel they can) and there's unlikely to be any more comeback on you than anywhere else. If your saviour lets it be known that they're going to stop criminals, particularly anyone who tries anything on at the 7-11-cut-n-shave-gym-church-and-orphange that you run, you really have to trust that they (whoever 'they' are) have the ability to cow the local villains (and any external threats that might seak them out), but there's nothing you can do about it. Or do to get 'protected' in this way (save just being nice to all the quiet local kids, be willing to deliver pizzas to random manhole covers on request and always make sure that the back door is always open to the guy you've known since he was a kid who went away to serve ('time', and/or overseas) and came back with an understated but confident community-minded attitude).


But, really, if you've got a choice of 'Protection', then clearly no single 'Protection' is sufficient. (Technically unrelated, really, but I've got that running through my head now. Scroll down to "Choices" subheader, or listen to it if you have access to it as the actual programme.) And this is something that maybe we can only hope that an AI will not understand.

[1] Or else they aren't a Protection Racket, but... Security?

[Egan_BW]

Clearly the least costly (and most profitable) course of action is to give group A's leader and group B's leader new shoes of their own and proceed to rule your local area with an iron fist.

[Duuvian]

It appears progress is being made on a bill regarding deepfakes, and in particular pornographic deepfakes. AOC is going to co-sponsor it, so I'm especially hoping it will turn out well. However I looked at the Senate version here

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/3696/text?s=1&r=11

and I think there are some easily fixed problems whose improvement would not weaken the intent of the bill. I didn't go line by line but only skimmed this one, and didn't read the statutes this bill modifies so I'm going from context in this bill for that, but here's what I thought:

At first glance most of this is ok except for the lack of clear definition for proscribed intent [it utilizes the reckless disregard standard] and also by applying this standard to possession elements. This may open up a person who likes pornography but not necessarily deepfakes to unintentional exposure yet still be in reckless disregard through various avenues of interpretation.
-------
Later EDIT: So, this whole post was on this particular definition. I recalled it as being a low bar, but after posting  I looked up Reckless Disregard a bit and it's possible I misremembered a court somewhere's use of the term or a similar one as being what seemed a bit more of a low bar than what may be applied here (I didn't find a clear explanation in searches), so there is a good chance I might be wrong. I'd have to drive two hours to use a law terminal at a college to do more than search internet though. Here is the best explanation I found, which differed from what I had thought initially.

"Usually, the person acting with reckless disregard knows that he or she is breaking the law and may possibly be endangering others. This test of “knowing” is usually based on what the courts think a reasonable person could have concluded in the situation about their actions. "
https://www.mylawquestions.com/what-is-reckless-disregard.htm

It does have a reasonability component it appears, which can involve a matter of opinion. There may still be controversy arising from the reasonability component but in the positive seems like a higher bar to test reasonability at than some of my prior complaints about other bills, unless I am misremembering.

It's possible I was thinking of something like this definition for Reckless Disregard for the Truth, which does appear slightly lower:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/reckless%20disregard%20of%20the%20truth
-------


Anyways though, here's the rest of what I had initially posted. Keep in mind that it's likely I had been wrong about the intent standard being low, which is the whole point of the post, but I'm not sure:

I'd also worry (due to the low bar intent standard) that there appears to be ways to game the system at first glance. For example in a 3rd party providing deepfakes to the public, and then for the possession element (as well as the others, if I didn't misunderstand in my skim of the bill):

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(3) RELIEF.—In a civil action filed under this section—

“(A) an identifiable individual may recover the actual damages sustained by the individual or liquidated damages in the amount of $150,000, and the cost of the action, including reasonable attorney’s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred; and

However that doesn't seem like it would be very extensive of a problem, and it's predicated on the intent standard remaining.

I think the first problem could be clarified by writing in a slightly stricter intent standard that clearly won't penalize accidental possession such as an unlabeled at the source deepfake that would appear to be otherwise acceptable speech. This is important because of it's inherent nature: I probably wouldn't recognize every single pop-star and politician and also because I don't know every pornstar yet, and it would be unfair to make an assumption that people who have put in far less effort would be able distinguish the three categories instinctively. Alternately, removing the possession portion of this bill and only leaving the intent to distribute portion may be simpler and save a ton of headaches later, but I think that suggestion perhaps does not fit the intent of the bill as much as the first suggestion did, which preserves penalties for possession.

EDIT: I've looked at some articles on Reckless Disregard after writing this, it seems like maybe I was misremembering a state version or similarly named standard somewhere as being more problematic.

[EuchreJack]

Silly Duuvian, laws exist to incarcerate people we don't like, not to protect anyone!
Surprise and gotcha are the goals, not problems!
*This is either sarcasm or critique, not my actual beliefs. In reality, no politician ever reads the entirety of a bill that they vote on. If you actually care, call up your local congressional representative and talk with their staff about it. Loudly, frequently, and ideally with an annoying nasally voice.