One fun version of this. I once read a fanfiction that included a character with an interesting trait. They were cursed to be completely, hopelessly, comically lost. They get lost going to the bathroom in their own home. They end up hundreds or thousands of miles from where they intend to be.

But the tradeoff is, if there is ever somewhere they actually really need to be, they will be there every time. A loved one about to get hit by a bus? By random chance, the character would just happen to be wandering at the right place and time to intervene. Their kid has an important school play they need to attend? They’ll by dumb luck find their way to the auditorium. They live a life completely unable to get to where they want to go, but in turn they will always be where they need to be.

I know it’s a joke. But this could actually be an interesting plot setup, with one modification. I would make it so that Trolley man couldn’t actually save anyone himself. Rather, he has the power to temporarily give anyone powers equivalent to Superman or similar. The only problem is this is so stressful on the person’s body that the power up kills them after it wears off.

I propose a new law. If the victim of a murder is someone who owns a fortune more than 1000x the median household income, then someone on trial for the murder can make an affirmative defense that it was ok, simply because, “he needed killin.'”

Literally, if you can convince the jury that the guy had it coming, you get off Scott free. Anyone who wants to avoid potentially being killed and having their killer escape unpunished can avoid this fate by simply not hoarding wealth over the critical threshold. Those who hoard such fortunes will just have to live with enough kindness that no one could ever convince a jury that they deserved to die. We’ll end up with no billionaires or every billionaire becoming like Fred Rogers. I’ll take either outcome.

I’m sure it will be built by a contracting company incorporated just for this purpose. And after this, it will be dissolved. They’ll have no reputation to defend.

In the spirit of inclusive leftism, I say it stands for both!

Yeah, I enjoy the clankers meme as much as anyone, but it’s not hard to see how it could quickly end up in a dark place. Consider this. How hard would it be for the term “clankers” to drift from referring to the LLMs themselves to instead refer to the people who use LLMs? I could certainly see the word being adopted as an epithet for the fools that produce AI slop.

And now we’ve shifted from just joking about robots to actually referring to living human beings with a slur.

Polls have been pretty accurate. Some of the polls involving elections Trump specifically runs in have been less accurate, but even the polling of his race in 2024 was pretty accurate.

The UK is a primitive backwater. An absolute shithole.

Generally true politically. But these are questions that need to be asked.

Yes, it’s tempting to say, “a human life is priceless, no price to save a life is too high.” But there are an infinite number of ways dollars can be spent to save lives. And by making cars more expensive, that puts less money in people’s pockets to pay for healthcare, quality nutrition, etc.

What if someone invented a miraculous but expensive safety device? Imagine if someone invented a device that decreased traffic deaths by 95%, but at the cost of $250k per vehicle. We would make vehicles incredibly safe, but at the cost of completely shutting working people out from vehicle ownership. Would it still be worth it? There will always be some point where safety just isn’t worth the cost. Not because we don’t care about human life, but simply because there are many potential ways for us to spend money to enhance human safety and well-being.

I’m looking forward to this new The Beatles/Attack on Titan mashup. :D

Because I’ve personally met Jesus Christ. He’s a 10,000 year old former cave man.

There’s entire branches of research statistics dedicated to doing what you just dismissed as impossibl

No.

Found the Republican.

How does one determine if the killer killed the woman because he hated her and not just for fun?

What have you read on the legal basis of hate crime laws? What have you done yourself in order to answer your own questions?

No. You are just susceptible to right wing issue framing.

It does. Laws like this are always written gender neutral. Same thing with laws banning discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. It’s just as illegal to fire someone for being straight as it is to fire them for being gay.

These laws are always written to protect everyone. But conservatives such as yourself will read a headline and then whine about minority groups receiving “special treatment.”

These laws already are gender neutral, just like all anti discrimination laws.

I’ll come burn a cross on your lawn and then insist I can’t be charged with anything other than violating local fire ordinances…