nyan

This is why you don't train a bot on the entire Internet and then use it to offer advice. Even if only 1% of all posts are dangerously ignorant . . . that's a lot of dangerous ignorance.

Fortunately, this particular piece of bad advice is unlikely to poison any fool who goes through with it, since PVA glue is not considered an ingestion hazard, but "non-toxic" doesn't mean "edible", it just means "not going to poison you when used in the intended manner". "Non-toxic" can still be quite dangerous if you mistake something intended as linoleum pigment for a dessert topping.

I'm surprised the wolves were even able to find the sheep in that terrain. The greyer ones blend quite well.

Are there any classes of object left that Tesla FSD has not either hit or almost hit? Icebergs, maybe?

Someone will figure out how to turn it off again in fairly short order (it might be as simple as a mklink to NUL for the storage directory, causing it to send its recordings into the void). What irritates me more is the typical Microsoft misuse of the word "feature".

(I mean, this thing does have some potential uses (imagine being able to see what that elderly relative you provide tech support for actually did when they claim they "did nothing"), but the privacy concerns vastly outweigh them.)

A possible answer: "I'm sorry, but when someone is bleeding to death in front of me while screaming incoherently, my priority isn't on finding out who their employer is and they'd be unable to tell me even if I asked." Might stir some vestigial sense of shame in the bureacrat asking the question. Or not.

Perhaps they want to distract people from conditions in the UK.

The main point of charging anything at all for a plot would be to finance minimal record keeping: which plots are supposed to be full, who's in them, and, ideally, who bought the space. Plus a quick "do you have a death certificate?" check, and a request to inform whoever's doing the admin if you get to the pauper's field and find the plot you expected to use already occupied. Not an insurmountable barrier for a determined murderer who's done some advance planning, but it should make it less attractive as a dumping ground.

Wandering around the Internet a bit, it looks like the cheapest option for disposing of a body in Canada today is basic cremation (no funeral service, no urn, no coffin, no enbalming). Even that runs to around $2000, with some variation between funeral homes. If the CPP death benefit is $2500 before taxes, it might barely cover that, although I expect it would be tight. The major costs are the actual use of the crematorium (~40% of the cost on its own), paying funeral home staff to transport and refrigerate the body, and costs associated with legal documentation.

If you want to bury instead of burn, the cost baloons because cemetary plots and the services cemetaries require you to buy to make use of them are ridiculously expensive. Maybe what we need is a return to the pauper's field—$20 plots, no landscaping, and you dig your own hole (with maybe a quick check from someone official to make sure it's deep enough for sanitary purposes), transport the corpse in whatever vehicle is available, have anyone willing say a few words, get family or friends to help you lower the unfinished softwood crate-coffin, and add whatever marker you can afford after you fill the hole back in. You know, like poor people used to do up until a hundred or so years ago. You'll still need the body refrigeration, and the documentation, but it should be possible to get the costs down by considerable if we focus more on the necessary and less on the pretty and on overpriced "respect" for a deceased who, by definition, cannot be aware of it.

For now, though, set aside some money specifically to pay for disposing of your body, if you can. You heirs will thank you for it.

Require transparency in the form of publication of the maintenance bills, then, so that everyone can agree on whether it's a fair deal or not.

Even assuming the child was old enough for the first dose ("under five" could mean a newborn), they may have had a valid medical exemption. There isn't enough detail (in the article, or in the report it references) to say for certain. I admit that the probability is low.

The part that's being ignored is that it's a problem, not the existence of the hallucinations themselves. Currently a lot of enthusiasts are just brushing it off with the equivalent of ~~boys will be boys~~ AIs will be AIs, which is fine until an AI, say, gets someone jailed by providing garbage caselaw citations.

And, um, you're greatly overestimating what someone like my technophobic mother knows about AI ( xkcd 2501: Average Familiarity seems apropos). There are a lot of people out there who never get into a conversation about LLMs.

I prefer carrying the plastic over carrying a tracking deivce everywhere with me. Then again, I'm one of those weirdos that also still carries cash.

(Note that I'm not saying you should ditch your phone—your priorities are doubtless different from mine—just that for me the tradeoff is not acceptable.)