1) No harm no foul.
2) You do the crime, you do the time.

Surprisingly, it seems the DNC are the "do the crime, do the time' people in this generation. GOP has embraced the no harm no foul and even pardoned people.

Us Democrats are tough on crime. We care about the principle, not the result.

I personally am shocked that a judge would think it was OK to use AI at all when crafting his argument. Just do not do that. Do the job you were paid to do, you cannot hire someone else to do it, nor can you get an AI to do it.

Note, if you promise to cook me a meal and you order chinese take out, I will be similarly upset.

There is a valid use of technical jargon: to communicate from one expert to another in clear words that leave no doubt.

Example:
When talking to a kid, a nurse should say: "You broke a bone in your left leg."

When talking to the surgeon that will fix it, that same nurse should say "Greenstick fracture of the left tibia"

The kid likely does not know what the words greenstick, fracture, or tibia means. Nor do they need to know. But the surgeon definitely needs to know all that information.

HOWEVER, there has developed another use of technical jargon:
To make the speaker sounds smart.
See, I know what a greenstick fracture is and I know the word tibia too! I must know what I am doing, you can trust me to do the surgery. (I am not a doctor, do not trust me to do any surgery, you will not like the results).

The problem is that smart people have long ago realized that inappropriate use of jargon means you are a lying con man, not a smart person.

For this reason, when I hear 'synergy' or any variation of it (with a few exceptions), I know the speaker is a moron trying to impress me. Many people think "CON MAN" rather than 'competent expert' when jargon is used, particularly the word synergy which was abused to ridiculous lengths by idiots with MBAs.

Note the main exception is in the middle of an explanation of why the synergy exists, as in: "If we buy a solar panel and a wind turbine, we can get just one backup battery. The synergy will save us about 5% of the total cost."

The reporter still should write the article - allowing them to pick perspectives and write well.

But the editing of the piece - THAT can be done by AI. Have the AI go through and ensure that the piece is accurate, clear and engaging. The reporter can always object and send it to a human Senior editor if the AI made a mistake in the editing.

You do not live in Norway.

Most likely you live in America, where this kind of lip service is common. Partly because of the size - 348 million people.

Norway is a much smaller country - about 5.7 million (about 1.6% of the size of the US).

Its more like living in a small town where people know each other and track whether you keep your promises. There is a reason why Norway is in the top 5 happiest countries. The government actually tries to keep people happy.

Note, it helps that they do not have to maintain a crushingly powerful military and the debt that comes with it.

Or I want to clarify what I said for those that are challenged by the word pure. (I added the second part of that sentence after it was written to clarify it for fools).

By that I mean the AI does not understand how humans would react to someone using nuclear weapons, even if the effects were minimal.

That is, there are a lot of variations on how to use nuclear weapons. We could use one to create an EMP effect, destroying communication, transportation and the economy without killing many people or irradiating the planet significantly. We could use one to just wipe out a civilian city with military factories. Or we could use it to intentionally irradiate an area making it uninhabitable for centuries.

The AI looks at the less awful uses and thinks "we can definitely do that without raising the stakes, it is more ethical than conventional warfare".

It does not know how much we hate the more awful nuclear uses and have a culture that detests and fears radiation. Also:

1) the victims will not know exactly which use was done for months, if not years, inviting a much stronger immediate retaliation, escalating the war.

2) That it will be seen as 'crossing a line' into unacceptable behavior not just by the victims but also by neutral 3rd parties and even your own allies. If one Nato country used them, they would likely be kicked out of Nato even if it was just the EMP. Similarly, Russia would lose China as a semi-friendly ally (or vice versa).

Nuclear weapons are not just evil because of what they do, but also because it means you are violating the cultural norms the international community have supported. The AI is not familiar enough with these rules.

This is no surprise. The real thing is there are unmentioned elements of:

1) First to use an idea - no matter how stupid it is.
2) Pure good luck plus the absence of bad luck.

These two things matter a lot more in life than Americans admit it (Russia totally knows about the luck thing - they think it is more important than competence or hard work). America has a myth that average intelligence plus hard work makes you money - refusing to admit that luck plays as much a part of it. Hard work without good luck leaves you tired and middle class. Hard work with bad luck leaves you tired, broke, and sick. You try getting rich if you are born a black woman with drug dealer parents and childhood cancer.

When the people that think they have the right to track everything you do on the internet think Trump is being too Orwellian, that's something.

If Hannibal Lecter says he won't eat that, (not even with fava bean) maybe you should skip the meal.

If Stalin says that prison is too harsh, maybe you should upgrade the quality of it.

If Jeffrey Epstein says the girl is too young, maybe you should date someone closer to your own age.

And if the tech companies say that is too much of a privacy invastion, then DO NOT DO IT.

The US military swears the ICE drone had a pistol and made threatening gestures with it, clearly a terrorist threat.

ICE swears the US military laser looked Mexican and refused to obey totally reasonable orders to 'go back where you came from'.

People did it when I was a teenager.
People did it when my parents were teenagers.
People did it the in the American Revolutionary War.
People probably did it when the pharaohs ruled Egypt.

Anyone that thinks they can protect children with age verification is either:

1) A moron.
2) A lying scumbag that wants to track adults using the "think about the kids" scam.

I am thinking about the kids, you cannot stop them from lying about their age because they care far more about tricking you then you do about stopping them.

Because frankly,it is hard to describe them as anything but speculative fiction.

First, I would expect to have this interaction:

Customer (C): Hi, I would like a cheeseburger and fries.
Employee (E): Sure a-hole, would you please wait till I ask for your order, thank you a-hole.

Second, I would expect to have this interaction:

C: Hey scum sucking minimum wage a-hole, get me a burger NOW.
E: Please do not use profanity, thank you.

You want your employees to be cheerful? Try making their work environment pleasant. Pay them well, do not overwork them, let them take home food for free, let them give food to charity for free, etc. etc etc.

The reason your employees are surly is that you are an evil bastard that mistreats them. Forcing them to be cheerful just makes it worse - and the customers can easily see this.

The truth is the customers are not mad at the employees for being unhappy, they are mad at YOU for making them unhappy.

Its not just the last mile. In order to put in the last mile, they have to replace all the lines from the power plant to the final data center.

They are mostly old and out dated and would have to be replaced sometime in the next decade anyway, but if you build the new last mile they will also have to upgrade everything now. Most of it is carrying electricity to other homes and only about 5% of the electricity is going to the new lines.

They argue that they should not have to pay 100% of the costs if 95% of the benefit is going to other people.

against itself, until it realizes that:

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?