While I agree in principle... the word calculators that get praised as "AI" at the moment are very, very bad. Like... really bad. Pushing those unfinished, hallucinating monstrosities onto the keyboard itself is just janky. Just like Cortana was (and is for that matter)
well, technically they don't. Nor does any other nation technically speaking need any justification to deny US businesses from operating there (see sanctions against Russia or the US ban of Huawei). Yet that is so oversimplified that I won't even entertain the argument and it is way besides the point I was making originally.
Coffee cures cancer... no, it causes cancer... it cures cancer, but only when drank with half a tablespoon of wine... but wine causes cancer... no cures it... no it does both but only with chocolate... chocolate cures cancer... no it causes cancer... no it... and so on and so forth....
This half-assed, sensationalistic reporting of studies that are completely insignificant outside of a specific case in their respective fields causes so much harm when it comes to the trust of people in science.
But... you know that a chinese factory does not need approval by US regulators to run, right? Like... the US doesn't run the whole world and it's not a normal thing that US regulators check out foreign factories, nor should it be.
Now if you get accused of using slave labour... how can you prove that you do not do that? You'd need to prove that the slave-labour-factories don't produce anything that then gets sold to you, right? Because absence of slave workers in your factories is not proof that you don't subcontract a slave labour factory. So you'd need to demonstrate that you've got nothing to do with them. But if you don't work with those factories, you have no stake in the factories that exploit slave labour, so you can't let (foreign) regulators into those factories. Now, even if you manage to do that, one could just turn around and say "Well, then you must use another factory we don't know of, prove that this isn't the case". You cannot prove innocence, you can only prove guilt.
This sounds like one of those sciency bullshit articles where
a) the study was on a subcategory of proteins that in some very boring and specific cases influence the aging of a certain type of cell in a minor way
b) the study was a miniscule pilot study with 10 participants
c) it explicitly said that it's results are more than shaky and need further testing to prove anything
d) it didn't mention humans aging at all
e) the participants were some kind of worm
but some journalist read half the excerpt, misunderstood it completely and did a catchy article about what he hallucinated into the study.
Well, it's not that easy though, is it. You cannot prove a negative. So if I accused you of some sickening murder rape robbing spree where you harmed 20 people and by law it was on you to prove that you didn't do it, you'd be fucked because you couldn't prove that something isn't true.
I mean, screw this og so poor multi billion company and their worthless pieces f shit laser printers, yet I am wary of the increasing tendency internationally to flip "in dubio pro reo" on it's head.
Oh, so now this is a novel idea? I tried to do a study on that and was thrown out of the waterpark alltogether for being a pervert and a creep... I was trying to save men with shower-science, you buffoons!
How? "It's only genocide if they all are killed" or what's your definition? I mean... it's not a full-blown genocide right now but we've just entered the highway to Genocidistan.
Any lawyer in a position to refuse him as a client will stay the fuck away from the angry orange as possible.