I do love how everything is always “vibe-coded” regardless of any amount of effort, collaboration, or oversight that may have gone into the use of any AI. It really captures the nuances of the conversation.
Out of curiosity, did you willfully choose to not understand the circumstances that prosecutors are being forced to carry hundreds of cases, too many to even read before they are in court, and then they are forced to stand in front of judges and face contempt while they are asked to explain why the government, who the prosecutor has no real control over, is violating yet another judicial order?
It isn’t just a matter of prosecutors picking and choosing…it’s underfunding, DOGE, and then those that are left are treated as adversarial the moment they complain about conditions or case loads. (Just like your comment does.)
Very true, though it isn’t like we need to look very far to find similar instances of government and media collusion to control stories, laws passed to protect companies from liability for direct causally linked chemical dumping known to induce tumors, cancer, neurological diseases and other things, so on and so forth.
Every country seems willing to trade the lives or livelihood of citizens, much less people of other countries, to ensure their status quo. Some just pay more lip service to “rights” they will violate at the drop of a hat when push comes to shove.
Are you really trying to equate murder with naming a Bluetooth device and that a child should have their life ruined on the same scale as if they were equivalent in impact or intent, with little knowledge of the actual situation or intent?
Weird how you want kids to be punished for stupid mistakes. If you drive, you probably put more people lives in danger last week than that kids fitness tracker. When you speed, you put lives in danger (statistical fact, none of that “but I am good driver crap”) — will you ask for the death penalty if a cop sees you going 1mph over?
Or do you only want strong punishment for others as is usually the case with such opinions?
Are those drugs required for driving by the people who use them? I would expect if so, they would be tested more thoroughly before putting people on the road with a new drug, much like I’d rather not have someone driving toward me at a combined opposing speed of 100-120mph, two feet apart, while relying on “we didn’t think it will be a problem but we didn’t bother to test”.
That said, there is certainly room for an improvement in funding so that the FDA could go through processes more efficiently, but “efficiency” is rarely ever achieved by cost cutting because it confuses cause with effect.
I think enforcement would be poor and therefore abuse would be high, but it could be granted that they're not safe for driving and therefore if you own a pair, you must switch to different (your old regular dual focus lenses) when driving.
If someone is lying about what someone else did, it’s often either what they are doing or plan to do. It’s true in most situations and administrations, but objectively worse in the current. (Ignoring the whole marginalized vs anti-DEI arguments, which I consider SOP for a new administration with new goals.)
As well, any new rulings or laws that are designed to expire right before an election are almost always the mechanisms used for those abuses claimed as being perpetrated by others. And the number of things designed this way seem to be stacking up relatively quickly.
The reasoning is quite straightforward, “I want to make sure you can’t do the things I was just doing to you.” Otherwise there wouldn’t be a reason for policies that are good for everyone to expire at the end of a presidential term.
