I always considered the sci-fi def of AI to be the incorrect one. Once sentience appears. The intelligence is no longer artificial.

Seems to me the systems we have now that try to (badly) fake it, are real AI. And any created intelligence would be a Digital Intelligence or even just Created Intelligence.

Based on that def.

No gender exists.

No one is born with eggs or sperm.

Seems trump dose not understand pubity.

Let him go ahead and remove all legal definitions of biologocal gender.

The trump teams efficency expert. Openly suggested the US overthrow the UKs elected government. To free the UK people.

What the fuck right do they have to question anything representatives of that government says. And why the hell would the UK media feel they deserve any attenbtion.

Not news so much as bloody obvious olds.

Star Carr

Wow thanks for sharing.

Uffington White Horse is a maximum of 3,300 years old, Native Americans arrived on the continent a minimum of 16,000 years ago.

Very cool. Thanks for sharing. We really don’t have anything standing that old.

Stonehenge is known to have had a wooden henge from around 11000 years ago. And we have found a few settlements in peat bogs from that time. Some actual wooden ruins in some of the bogs. But nothing actually standing.

But a helicopter and hire a pilot.

If you not Musk. A circus cannon.

But you really should not be driving on that health state.

Yep really unfair. When you’ve been dead 200 years. Folks really should give you more than a few weeks to struggle out of bed.

Some FYI

Timing wise, this was done when the US existed as the US. 200 years ago. And let’s face it, the US has its own history of witch fears. The UK doesn’t actually have much history of killing witches. Some, but the vast majority of accusations were released. Germany and a few other EU nations have more. But most were still released when tried.

That said public fear of it was there and the accusations happened. I’d also expect murders happened that were less official, so not documented like Salem etc was.

But the stuff that will really fascinate is the much, much older stuff than this.

I grew up near Wayland’s Smithy and Uffington White Horse. Both created before the Americas were discovered by Europeans. Even the Vikings. Likely before Native Americans had a land bridge to cross into the continent. (although someone more knowledgable of those dates would have to confirm that).

There really is an abundence of neolithic sites around the UK. Many near me, but over the UK as a whole. Well worth some time online or even a visit if you’re into such stuff.

Things like the white horse and Stonehenge are well known worldwide. But honestly there are so many more, few know about it is fascinating.

If you add the more recent castle ruins etc. It is insane numbers. Heck, we have a fake ruins that are older than the USA. The abbey walls in Abingdon are actually a 1100ad recreations of a 675ad abbey destroyed in the 900s. So someone wowed by history as old to them as this article’s event is to you. In the 1100s and recreating the building.

Hmm the UK just gained a free cypertruck.

They are not legal here. So one was confiscated when someone drove it in from europe.

Maybe we can give Elon some free marketing. He launches a car into space.

Maybe the UK can make a big budget video. Building a modern, carbon fibre, reusable trebuchet and launch a cybertruck into a landfill.

Well as he founded the company. So Not really. Same staff may have done similar for other companies. But it is hard to say the people would be together with the same goals without him.

But yeah. He is little more then money and bullying. His skill is non existant. And id be suprised if much of the corperate goals to reusable space flight are actually his. Rather then folks he paid to think.

I sorta imagine him walking into a room of random smart folks and saying. How much to go to mars. And letting others work the solution.

When you are doing something for publicity.

Possibly suffer

It is at the least probably suffer.

If you are intentionally damaging property while looking for publicity. And do not expect to face legal consequences. You are seriously failing to learn from history.

In this case. The jury was specifically ordered to ignore her motive for the actions. That was what prompted the response I quoted. And this is the case in the vaste majority of crimes.

Her argument was that climate change is not a belief but a fact. Unfortunately, that is not what the court claimed. The belief they ordered them to ignore was not climate change. But her claim that her committing a crime was excusable due to the need to draw attention to it.

You may claim she expected jury nullification. And heck, she almost got it. But that in itself is what I mean by history. Jury nullification is so rare in the UK as to be almost non-existence. To expect it from property damage. Where the evidence is public and obvious is not realistic. It is a theoretical principle of over legal system. Not a defined expectation.

Comparison If you speed on the motorway. You may believe it is possible you will get a ticket. But when you do it past a speed camera that flashes. You are not being honest unless you tell the wife it’s probable or pretty darn certain.

EDIT: unless you can claim someone was chasing you with a gun. Saving life has historically been an excuse for crime. But only in very direct situations.

Interesting to consider. If she filled aircraft fuel tanks with sugar. Or the jet engine equiv. Her climate change argument might be considered an excuse. As her belief that damaging the aircraft could stop the harm would be relevant.

Unlike damaging electronic signs, painting or historical documents.

Yeah. Unfortunately, I do not think I’d make a good politician.

Need to find someone with a bit more personality (and less mental depression/ugly mug). To start such a group. I’d likely be a background worker.

The law says I must kill anyone 2 shades of white below mine.

Ever wonder why laws like that don’t exist.

The closest we got is prejudicial reporting laws. Germany in WW2.

But a less racist example/ Draft during the same war. Draft is the only time it has been a crime to refuse to kill. And at the time, society truly believed you had an obligation to kill for your nation. Pacifism was just seen as another word for coward.

Many people suffered prison and other punishment. For refusing to fight during the second world war. If those people were not willing to risk prison. They would have been ignored. But because many were willing to go to prison. And be forced to work mines rather than fight and kill. (PS, My grandfather brother died in those mines.)

Mining at that time was generally more dangerous than joining the soldiers. And according to my grandfather, he knew the risk when he refused to fight. For context ill add my grandfather was an engineer for smiths. So was in a protected profession. He made instrumentation for spitfires. I raise all this just to point out the discussions I had with him. As he considers himself to have grown from his brother’s experience. He was angry that he was not able to fight during the beginning of the war. As was the case for many young men in protected professions in the first years. Learning of his brother, experience and death in forced labour. Made him realise and respect the sacrifice he and other pacifists made.

Other options were presented late in the war. Plus more recently. Remember the recent election. And the Tories trying to reintroduce national service. If no event like pacifists going to jail during WW2 had happened. Then the Tories would not have bothered to offer so many non-military options.

We as a society now respect the concept of pacifism because people took risk to fight for the rights not to kill. Same with mmost other modern ideals.

Women’s right to vote was won by the women willing to be jailed and beaten by police. Not the people running church coffee mornings.

It does. But it can also be an advantage. When people are willing to vote on a single issue. Bigger parties fear the loss of votes more than in a proportional system.

Green never got a huge % of votes. 2MPs is the highest number (I think). But long before they had any MPs, larger parties adopted the issue rather than lose votes.

And that one I won’t advertise. Forced and won a referendum with 0 MPs. I may hate their cause. But they were able to effect politics with way less votes. Than disability advocates both able and disabled exist.

I hate FPTP as far as its ability to represent the desires of a democratic society. But for single issues. It actually can help smaller populations gain a voice.

EDIT: I honestly think just forming a serious party would raise enough publicity. That the 3 big parties would panic. Despite Tories recent pre-election attack on disabled, Most voters really only notice the issues when they see it with family members. Having a couple of elections where a party is running while pointing out the broken promises plus challenging past negative attacks from political parties. Can you really see either the Tories or Labour openly disagreeing with a rational argument on this? Their options in n election will be to lie, deny intent to harm. Or ignore us.

There really is no shortage of data that can be used to gain support. And our own population alone is all we would need to scare the larger parties away from ignoring such a party.

The hardest part would be raising the money to get started. The community has no shortage of able/skilled voices. It’s convincing them to fight for an agreed platform that would be difficult.

They say ‘I do what I like without thinking about the law’. I don’t think following the law and doing the right thing are always the same thing.

And you are correct. But when you make the choice to break the law based on what is right. You also make the choice to suffer the consequences. As law is made by society. Not right or wrong.

If you believe, your actions are correct and society wrong. Then you are choosing to sacrifice to fight that battle.

And just like, a person killing a paedophile may be seen by all as right. It is still a crime of murder. Just like destroying property to make your point is still criminal damage, no matter your point. Your willingness to commit the crime is pretty worthless. If you are not also willing to suffer the punishment.

The interesting thing is. As of a 2023 report. 24% of the UK has a disability.

So even if we assume 50% of that number do not consider themselves disabled. That is still a sizable voting block.

It more a matter of actually agreeing with each other and standing up for that ideal.

Maybe it is time for a disability political party. One issue parties have managed a lot. Green. The other one I have no desire to advertise but has managed more.

We were being attacked and blamed by the last gov. And the current one is only less vocal about their actions. But def have no better plans.

Maybe it really is time to stop depending on multissue parties to stand up for our needs. And to instead make it clear for ourselves.

Fair evasion was harder. Due to more staff.

But it def happened. People hiding from inspectors was not uncommon.

Just like theft of all kinds. Poverty is the largest cause.

Agreed. IE privrate equity. But public services still have to survive in a society where voters and economic interests want less spending. The same voters that objwct to public spending still exist when the true left is in charge. So high taxes for corperations and high public spending will always be am issue.

Force really is the only way to sipence opposing views. They still have a voice and people still listen even when the majority disagrees.

That majority is never close to absolute in a democratic society.

OK.

Well, as someone just about old enough to remember pre privatised rail. I will agree the Draconian nature of fare fines was less prevalent. Fines still existed. But were not used when it was obviously an error. IE wrong ticket rather than no ticket.

But more importantly, staffing was much higher. Every train had ticket inspectors. And those inspectors used their own judgement more. (Unfortunately, that judgement could lead to racism or other prejudice choices).

But honestly, while I think private rail failed in every form. I do not think the moving away from staff numbers would have been different under a public rail system. Public systems are still under pressure to reduce spending. Either to increase revenue to the government or reduce cost.

So honestly, I don’t see the fines or motivation to skip fares, being any different under a nationalised rail system in the modern era. Folks still skipped fares under nationalised rail. It’s just genuine errors were rarer, due to lack of automation.

more of a service issue at heart. Rail

Please explain. Music piracy many argued was because the industry restricted access. So piracy was better service. I am not sure how rail fare evasion is similar.

(and all infrastructure) should not be privately owned

Agreed. But it does seem current plans are to get us much closer to that. As the gov is replacing all contacts with coops or the new gov owned rail. As they expire by 2027.