CharonY

That is an entirely different conversation and is a matter of individual growth and maturity. It has nothing to do with either the original OP and also significantly veers of from the topic of the split, which seemed to reference abuse related to age. There, the other elements, such as coercion, prostitution, trafficking, consent and other things are more relevant.

Especially considering how early the abuse started, and from the father, no less. Incidentally, this part of the discussion actually highlights why victims of abuse frequently do not report abuse to authorities. They have to be near perfect before being taken seriously. Any other behaviour will be as evidence that the abuse was not real. That is why abusers frequently target kids from difficult backgrounds.

Also regarding Tesla's attempt there is some recent data and it doesn't look good. ElectrekTesla 'Robotaxi' adds 5 more crashes in Austin in a month...Tesla has reported five new crashes involving its “Robotaxi” fleet in Austin, Texas, bringing the total to 14 incidents since... So at least for now the pivot to an AI/Robotic rather than car company doesn't really bear fruit.

I think sexual maturity might be better suited for a different thread. I will also say that this questions is only of limited relevance here. The issue is not that a teenager had sex, but rather that a much older and more powerful adult has coerced them to that. Of course, there is no universal rule for appropriateness of such interactions, but modern laws as well as morality have coalesced around key aspects of consent, ability to consent and maturity, disparity in maturity between partners and power imbalance (and potentially more aspects that elude me right now).

In addition, folks may want contradictory things, say higher levels of governmental services as well as a massive reduction in taxes. Or voting for/against things that are not real, such as chemtrails. Folks that equate compromise (or a shared reality) with autocracy are, IMO, most susceptible to an authoritarianism. The reason being that democratic system are held accountable against certain standards, whereas an autocrat can support a false reality (e.g., sports are overrun with transgender folks) and also make contradictory promises. Such as using tariffs to lower taxes. They are aware that they are not going to be tested against reality, as their plan is to consolidate power to such a degree that they will be in place regardless if they actually are improving things for the people. Oh yes, the "some bad laws" included trying to dismantle the judiciary, which of course is a hallmark of authoritarianism. But of course the issue of banning less than a percent of the population in certain sports is pretty much of equal importance to having some sort of functioning democracy. OP basically says that systems that are in the way authoritarianism are the real authoritarians.

The issue with AI and perhaps data availability on the internet in general is that many students assume that all necessary facts are out there and that is a waste of time to learn them in the first place. The issue is that as a consequence they lack a very basic foundation to create some level of understanding. Some of the most frequent issues we see among students is that tend to fail at synthesis, i.e., connecting isolated facts. Offloading that further, obviously won't help. It is like having an electric piano that plays scales on its own and wondering why one doesn't get better at playing the instrument. The fact that OP starts with a summary rather than reading the actual document as first task show the erosion of basic skills. AI could be used to test ones comprehension after reading, for example, but a small minority of students is doing that (usually those that are top students either way).

Perhaps more like 2nd vs 1st degree murder, as manslaughter generally doesn't require intent. In this case, the intent is clear, abuse of vulnerable kids. And in terms of intent, there is little to believe that Epstein had any moral red line. While not verified, lawmakers have alluded to at least mentioning of 10 and 9 year olds.

This is clearly not the case. For starters, in an documentary you are not under oath. It also seems that you have either watched a different doc than I did, or at least with a different lens. That being said, This is probably the strangest take and would only make sense if you have not been exposed to the Epstein case by any media, which would suggest an imbalance between the conviction regarding the facts of the case and the available information. For starters, you are aware that Epstein was indicted in 2019 again? Here is a press release (bolded by me): As you have been so keen on using the prior indictment as a defense of Epstein (which were criticized, though not overturned by an internal DOJ investigation), what do you make of those new indictments?

This is silly. You are basically saying that any compromise is authoritarian. Living in a society, heck, even just being a family requires compromise. According to your logic, there would only be two ways of living freely: 1) living entirely alone, abolishing the need for compromise, or 2) having a stratified society where everyone's decision fully align.

In a landmark action, the Trump administration has decisively erased the challenge of climate change by using the presidential powers of "nuh-uh". I wished I was making it up but one of the argument is that CO2 is actually good, plants use it. There is also the issue is that depending on landscape and crop other factors are more limiting than CO2, but that is entirely beside the point. It is pretty much the same argument against global warming by pointing out that winters exist. After all, my fridge is cold, so what is everyone so afraid about? So please excuse me, while I go huff some asbestos in preparation for a refreshing sewage bath. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/12/climate/trump-epa-greenhouse-gases-climate-change.html?unlocked_article_code=1.LlA.9x5h.aUEJwaIwn1jf&smid=url-share Clearly, the administration seeks to overwrite reality and, by extension, scientific consensus on many levels. This, obviously will have massive implications, especially as research is highly dependent on government funding. So my broader question is really is there a way to maintain scientific integrity in such an environment?

Well basic capitalist economics dictates basically that if all you have is hard work, you are already a loser in the system (Labour is inherently constrained at the individual level, but capital has no such upper bound on leverage.). They should amend that morals are a further constraint. I wasn't aware of that term. There is an acronym (well, initialism) for everything, isn't there?

In addition, the power differential should not be overlooked. It is not like the situation is one of free, well-informed and consensual interaction. An important element of this form of abuse is the normalization of the situation, establishing authority and influence over the victims actions and decisions and perspectives. It is a well-established methodology in cults and cult-like organizations.

That is a fair point, though in the article there are folks mentioned who had a bit of a reputation on their own, and even if they just shared jokes, it ain't a good look. Also he was pretty good pals with more than one University president and at least with one there were quite some suggestive emails. Even assuming that nothing illegal has happened, it is again not a great look for a position who frequently works with younger folks. That, too. Also timing, e.g. before he was formally convicted (and whether they were aware of it). I am a bit wary of personal endowments if there is a possibility that there are strings attached, but I guess that is a different discussion.

I mean, it is not exactly a secret that there are creepy scientists. It was more that until recently such beaviour was downplayed or excused, mostly if they ware powerful men. It did not impact existing anti-intellectual sentiment then, though of course nowadays anything could be weaponized.

That is actually my overall point. I.e. there are conditions that we consider to be deficiencies of sorts if we test for it, but they may or may not interfere with every day life. The latter is often used an indicator of a disorder, and there are certainly conditions that can do that to an extreme level. However, there are other conditions that are only an issue under certain conditions, or are itself on a continuum. An examples is ADHD, which was often seen as a categorical disorder, though increasingly data suggests that a dimensional understanding might more sense. And I suspect that this is true for many things that we currently still classify in terms of categorical disorders.

I think the key element that is left out is that key to science is the self-correction element. It is not about absolute or truths, at all, but the idea that over time, things will be incrementally more accurate. As such, it is more about trust in the process, rather than trust in people. Rather unfortunately, some folks do not realize that and focus on the persons instead.

I found aphantasia very interesting for the discussion of what we consider disorders or impairments in the mental realm. On its face, aphantasia seems like a deficiency in terms of what some claim is is mainly sensory imagination. Yet, in everyday life folks do not seem to be really affected by it.

It is also noteworthy that it would be a bit of a mistake to see cohesive strategies everywhere in the Trump administration. There are of course folks who do have a plan, such as Vought and Miller. But as Trump is too lazy (or dumb) to follow all that, his public remarks have been used repeatedly in court to undermine arguments of government lawyers in court. I think Trump is used to pick and choose whatever reality he fancies at any given point but at least so far that doesn't really work in court. I may be wrong, but isn't KJW's point that foreign relations is a clear area where the constitutions gives the federal government the primary power limits state powers? I.e. the idea of declaring something relevant to foreign relations (or anything else primarily in the fed's jurisdiction) would be a means to move jurisdiction and thereby effectively curtailing state powers. I do not really see a realistic path to that. But then, since Trump mentioned it, I think it is a fair bet that there are folks strategizing about that.

But I fear that they also don't particularly care. After all, pretty much everyone during his first administration who exited have remarked how little Trump understands basic concepts, including foreign relations. And of course, the first few weeks of the second Trump administration made it exceedingly clear. I am also pretty sure that the pentagon was understood what is happening, with Hegseth as the Secretary of Defense. The pentagon is not really outward-facing and there have been reports of levels of confusion and demoralization. Yet, clearly, there is no formal pushback, (as opposed to Trump 1.0) and it is not clear what would have to happen before there is.

This is not how markets work. China is free to buy from anywhere regardless of who else is buying. However, Russian oil got cheaper as others had stopped buying it, as we have established. This would have happened even if Europe for some reasons had reduced demand for oil.

I had a discussion recently with folks from health authorities who were testing a chatbot for patient interactions and diagnostics. It is specifically trained on medical data and what they wanted to use it for is initial interactions and preliminary diagnoses. I don't know the specific model they tested, but they did a comparative study with health care providers. The interesting bit is in the patient cohort, folks significantly preferred them over interactions with real family doctors. To a large degree because they didn't feel rushed and could chat at length regarding their issues. And on the diagnostic side, they outperformed humans, because they were able to pick up things that were not mentioned or missed by humans. That being said, I think medicine is a great place for AI, as in many cases the way a healthcare provider works is based on existing diagnoses and there is comparatively little room (or allowance) for creative assessments or trying out new ideas. I think there was one area where AI underperformed by a little bit, but I cannot recall what it was. It is possible that it was related to rare diseases, where overall detection was low to begin with. I thin there are a few things one could gleam from those tests (unfortunately the paper is not written yet). First is benefits to patient satisfaction. Even though it is virtual, the fact that things are at their pace and because AI has unlimited patience, they feel taking seriously. The second is that for routine things, they perform better, as they are less likely to dismiss things. For rare or very difficult diagnoses, it would depend a bit. On the human side, the variance is huge. Some specialist get to the right diagnosis, just because it happens to be in their wheelhouse. Also, in my experience, MDs with an active research program tend to be picking up non-regular things, as they are more used to think in an analytical way, as opposed to going through check lists. I had cases where I had to explain family doctors the etiology of certain diseases and their molecular mechanisms, because they either got it wrong or the references they used (in one case, wiki) was off. I assume an AI system (based on current capacities) will have less variance, but will more likely miss the outliers, though that can be tweaked, of course. But given the system in which healthcare currently operates, AI models are almost certainly to have serious impact here, including on the patient-facing side. Edit: On the diagnostic side the implementation is probably seamless, basically AI-enhanced tools with human oversight The main issue I see there is that these conveniences often lead to a drop in human capacity, especially as trust in the tools themselves increases. As those tools might not be static, it is unclear to me what happens if human capacity decreases.

Yes, though the Ukraine war did cause a surge in private PV installation, as energy prices shot up across much of Europe. Effects such as those likely make it harder to predict the effect on the broader energy grid and given the cost, could partially explain the hesitancy in converting/expanding the grid to accommodate broader solar use.

It is a bit like a news segment. And it has sparked some discussions so I don't see a reason to close it.

From what I remember, they strategically built infrastructure in parallel with building photovoltaic production and installation. They have specific challenges, including vast distances to cover. In one article they described the challenges that the most attractive area for renewable energy production (including solar) was in the West, whereas much of the energy consumption is in the East. From a quick google: So apparently they had a strategy of mixed large-scale production in the West and a scattering of decentralized grids elsewhere. They also upgraded their electrical system which was optimized for one-way delivery (as in the article regarding the Netherlands) to facilitate easier two-way generation, to account for the decentralized delivery. Likewise (and I don't know the specifics), they also upgraded much of their coal-power to be more flexible in power generation and they have heavily invested AI-based energy use forecasting to create a flexible energy generation model. Something similar is planned in Canada, where e.g. SMRs are used to supplement power needs. I think the broader point here is that there was a long-term plan in the background, that informed more than a decade in strategic investment to build this infrastructure up. Economic paper have also focused on how China built up market forces to incentivize this development (including certification programs for renewables, encouraging trans-provincial development and certificate trading. A lot of these things have actually been also been proposed and implemented in the West, but there have been policy changes that seem to complicate things. The final bit, and this is likely less acceptable in the more free-market oriented areas, is massive investments in innovation where they create a kind of artificial competing market (I think I read the term deathmatch or similar) to basically make the best case for massive state funding (which is one of the reasons for tariffs on Chinese PV). That being said, this situation seems to have led to overproduction (one of the dangers of this model). But again, the broader point is that renewable energy use was on the agenda for China for quite a while and they managed to continuously build on it from multiple angles over more than a decade.

I think there are multiple factors that one has to keep in mind. One is that the the adoption in Europe pre 2018 was fairly slow, in part caused by cost. After 2018 tariffs on Chinese solar were reduced contributing to massive acceleration. Another jump happened due to the energy crisis caused by Russia. A number of factors, including incentives phasing out have contributed to a slow down. But as noted, there have been quite a few criticisms how the rollout has lacked strategic investment in infrastructure. I think some reports have characterized that as a blind spot in the market approach to incentivize renewables. In contrast, from what I understand, China's rollout has been more deliberate with high levels of investment in grid, in parallel to incentives for the solar industry as a whole package. That being said, they came at other costs including the reliance on coal energy to enable the increase in the production of photovoltaic units, and so on.