I would use it for purchasing large quantities of uranium glassware and for equipment and supplies needed to extract uranium from uranium glassware. I wish to recreate and improve upon the experiments of famous experimental physicist David Hahn. 🤣🤣🤣

Jesus H Christ, there are just some things that should be rented, not owned. Tempted to buy a jetski? Go rent a jetski every weekend you feel like during the applicable season(s) for one year. Feel like jetskiing this weekend? Just rent a jetski, have a great time, and don’t even worry about the cost. Sure, shop around for a good rental place. But once you’ve found a good one, just go to it as often as you feel like, ignore the cost entirely. Yes, it will feel like you’re throwing money away. It will go against every instinct that tells you it’s cheaper to buy than rent. But you’re not throwing money away. You’re buying insurance against potentially making a real bad financial decision. It’s fine to spend money on things you love doing. But the risk in owning an expensive rapidly depreciating toy is that you will simply lose interest once it’s no longer shiny and new. If after a year, you’re still in love with the thing and are firmly convinced you’ll want to jetski long into the future? Only then consider buying one. And even then you should calculate what the actual payback period is for renting vs. buying. If you love jet-skiing, but only a couple times a season? It’s probably not ever worth buying one. Use it the majority of weekends through a whole season? Might be worth it.

It’s just the nature of the rental business that it will take at least several years worth of the average person’s use of a thing to make buying a better option than renting. Same goes for RVs, regular boats, really any big expensive motorized thing that you can either buy or rent. (Cars and other modes of daily transport are the exception. These simply a necessity for many people. For millions, the need for vehicle ownership is a near-lifelong requirement, so there’s no risk of buying a car and then two years later never driving it. )

I choose to believe that in this dream of yours, it’s actually a house boat, and the only cabin onboard is a sauna. You just live in a sauna sailing around on the sea. You own no clothing other than an abundant supply of towels.

And really, even keeping investments in a taxable brokerage account is fine. Until a married couple makes over $613k, their tax rate for long-term capital gains is 15%. And over that it’s only 20%. The US loves to tax labor and consumer spending, but not investment income. It’s baked into the tax code. If I invest $50k and over 25 years it turns into $350k, I honestly don’t mind paying 15% on those $300k in gains. And if your household income is under $99k, you pay no long-term capital gains tax. This effectively means that those living off of large amounts of taxable mutual funds can cash out up to $99k in gains per year without owing taxes on those gains.

And there are some oddball circumstances where taxable accounts are even better than tax-advantaged accounts. I once worked at a job where the 401k had terrible options. They simply had no low-cost index funds. They all had terrible expense ratios. I did the math, and the compounding effect of those ratios, eating away at my retirement savings, reducing its compound growth year-by-year. I ran some calculations, comparing investing in the expensive 401k plan or low-cost index funds in a taxable brokerage account. And the taxable brokerage account beat it out over the length of a career. Even when I assumed I would have to pay 15% on all gains made, a cheap taxable investment account can beat out an expensive 401k plan. Certainly not the ideal situation, but people rarely have the luxury of rejecting an employment offer because of the options in a company’s 401k plan.

You sound like a person who’s not ready to move on. Come on. The Trump administration is over. Let go of the past, forgive, and just move on!

There’s a big difference between, “I know my product will statistically increase the chance of early death across the population” and “I believe there is a very real chance my product will kill everyone.”

All sorts of things increase risk. But child endangerment and similar laws are meant for very immediate and direct threats. OpenAI is building machines that they themselves believe could kill everyone. I see that as very similar to the idea of having fentanyl in the same house as young children. The fentanyl isn’t a danger because it will increase the chance of the kids getting lung cancer in their sixties. The fentanyl is a danger because one dose of it could kill a kid instantly. The law addresses immediate threats, not statistical increases in mortality observable across the population.

I don’t just think AI should be regulated, I think everyone at the hyperscaler companies should be criminally indicted. Every employee at OpenAI and Anthropic working on AI development should be indicted on 8 million counts of child endangerment.

The relevant statute is California 273a.

It is a crime in the state of California to allow a child to be placed in a position where great harm could come to them. For example, people have been indicted under this statute because they had drugs in the same house as young children. Even if no children are actually hurt, simply putting them in a situation where harm is likely is the crime.

It would normally be quite difficult to prove that the actions of OpenAI and others are endangering children. But the very words of these companies would be the first exhibit of the prosecution. They’ve openly confessed to their crimes! These very same companies and their leaders have repeatedly said that they’re building machines that they themselves believe have a reasonable chance of destroying humanity. And the children of California are a subset of humanity.

Whether their claims are realistic or not, I cannot say. But I simply believe that it is legal to build a machine that you yourself believe could destroy the world. We’re so glazed over by the novelty of AI that we forget to treat it like any other threat. In most places it is a crime to perform some action that you believe has a realistic chance of hurting people, even if you have no intention or desire to hurt people.

Well, according to OpenAI, the machines they are building represent a very real risk to the life and safety of every child in the State of California. I see no reason that they shouldn’t be charged with millions of counts of child endangerment. According to their own words, they are literally putting the lives of children at risk. That is a crime. That is not legal. And we should stop pretending it is.

They will do no such thing. They will declare it’s “time to move on” and not prosecute Trump administration officials for their crimes or pardon those persecuted by the Trump regime.

[CITATION NEEDED.]

I wonder if it’s physically possible to build a supersonic biplane…

If nothing else, how about just the increased risk of car accidents that comes from more people being sleep-deprived after being woken up in the middle of the night by a warning siren?

There is something inherently evil about a technology that encourages you to turn over your voice to a soulless machine. Let the machine speak for you.

Human cremains are too acidic to make good growing soil.

Why not just add an acid to lower the pH?

Splashy vroom vrooms.

You can calm down the performative social justice stuff. While what you say is true, it is irrelevant to this discussion. We’re not discussing whether someone experiencing a mental health crisis might hypothetically attack someone. We’re talking about whether someone who did attack someone did so because of a mental health crisis. The attack is not in dispute. Their moral and legal culpability is.

And even if it was psychosis, this just makes it a tragedy, not the fault of the employees she assaulted. Whether you’re out of your mind or not, if you attack people, they have a right to defend themselves.

Eh. Even then. The hair stylist should offer advice, but if someone really wants a bad cut? Their body. Their choice.

His daughter doesn’t exist, and this is simply his internal concept of his chatbot.

Only perverts buy pervert glasses.

I hate it. I recently went through a formal diagnosis process with a psychiatrist. And he used AI transcription. It was clear from the notes that it was mostly surface-level details. The notes included things I mentioned, but lacked depth and synthesis. The point of requiring doctors to write down notes is not just for record-keeping. The synthesis step is essential. And you completely lose that with an AI transcriber. Instead of summarizing with a clinical synthesis in mind, it just blindly copies down surface-level details. You end up with a long and detailed but extremely vapid session record.