Laws vary by country and state, but some European countries are actually more permissive than the US in the matter of self defense.

For example, Germany allows you to use deadly force to protect mere property, this is not allowed in many US states.

What did the US gain in Vietnam?

What did the USSR gain in Afghanistan?

Superpowers have a long history of leaving quagmires with their tails tucked between their legs.

The articles point out the company went bankrupt and her doctors advised her to remove the implant. It says she was willing to pay to keep it, and suggests this could have been avoided if another company could have taken over device maintainance.

All of which suggests that the device was removed because it could no longer be maintained, despite her willingness to pay.

Putin can survive the loss of Crimea. And he knows that a tactical nuclear attack means he loses Crimea and NATO destroys the Black Sea Fleet. That's not preferable to simply losing Crimea.

Any further escalation means that Putin likely loses his life, too. Definitely not preferable to the other two outcomes.

So you're fine with seeing some people in cages. You just don't want to see SBF in a cage.

I can't stop anyone from doing something I don't like.

But historically, there have been plenty of solutions to stop someone from doing something society doesn't like. For example, execution. Torture. Punishing their relatives. Exile. Prison. And asking them nicely to please stop.

Of those, I think prison is the best option. Putting someone in a cage may seem wrong, but letting them freely murder and rape innocent people is more wrong.

Something doesn't have to be 100% effective to work.

Quitting smoking works to prevent cancer. That doesn't mean it is 100% effective in preventing cancer.

Of course it works. If you threaten someone with jail when they do X, then they are less likely to do X.

To take one example, several states have recently threatened doctors with jail if they perform abortions. As a result, obstetricians are now fleeing those states to avoid being prosecuted for performing their normal medical duties. If jail had no deterrent effect, then obstetricians would stay put and keep doing what they've always been doing, including performing safe abortions.

To take another example, several state have recently decriminalized marijuana, thus reduces the risk of jail for sale and possession. As a result, marijuana is more commonly consumed in public and far more commonly sold in public. If jail had no deterrent effect, there would be no change in the number of businesses selling marijuana.

Most of the time, human guidance occurs before the AI generates anything. For example, ChatGPT was trained with human involvement, but most of what it writes will not be reviewed and edited by a human.

However, an identifiable component of the text must have been written by a human author in order to claim copyright. So most of what ChatGPT writes cannot be copyrighted. It would only be eligible for copyright if a human reviewed and edited what ChatGPT had written.

There is an underlying tension in that copyright is explicitly meant to be an incentive for creative efforts made by humans (who would otherwise be doing something else), and AI is generally designed to replace humans engaged in creative efforts.

The whole point of the Chinese room is that it doesn't need anything "dedicated to creating the experience of consciousness". It can pass the Turing test perfectly well without such a component. Therefore passing the Turing test - or any similar test based solely on algorithmic output - is not the same as possessing consciousness.

Congress can write laws that the SCOTUS is not allowed to review. They've actually done this in the past

The funny thing is that Kerry did actually commit America to a UN program that sends money to people affected by climate change. It's just not called a "reparations" program.

Many other countries will join the US in funding this program. But not China. In fact, Chinese leaders couldn't even be bothered to show up to the climate change conference (COP27) where this was discussed.