In the case of trash collection, the fine has been put in place by the trash-collection corporations. How that specifically may analogize to household-chore robots: I’m not sure. There are possibilities, but picking one among many and saying it will certainly be that one seems likely to be like gambling. Perhaps the robotic company requires you to sign an end-user agreement with lots of fine-print legalese.

I’m making what is called an analogy.

What reason would the governments have …?

The motive is money, but I didn’t say anything about governments, that was your interpretation, and I’ll admit it is a possibility. These robots are said to be AI, and I’d be very surprised if they don’t also have wireless communications of some kind, but to whom and whether those communications can be hacked are all unknowns.

In California, decades ago we used to be able to throw away our household trash in one container. Now we have 3 containers, and it’s recently become a fine-profit center: if folks don’t properly separate their recycling, greenery, and trash components, the AI-surveillance cameras mounted on the trucks will catch it and fine the subscriber (never mind that these trash-recycling-greenery containers are unlocked and on the street where anyone can open and toss something in). In similar fashion, if society adopts robots for household chores, how long until household inspections are held to fine people (as a profit center) who don’t keep their homes sufficiently neat?

While it may not work well for everyone, this is my solution: How To Make Pizza Hut’s Pan Pizza At Home | Allrecipes - YouTube

Off-topic comment. I read this article, but read it in a couple different sessions due to interruptions, and had apparently clicked on to other pages. I wanted to comment about how US culture is unreasonably hard on young people (in general), and for all the US talk of freedom, is often restrictive, especially so for minors. Unfortunately, finding this article page was rather difficult. A browser addon called “What we say” had 4 links from the article back to Lemmy discussion, but they were mostly to a federated instance called “Division by zero”. So I tried the button labeled “Find in my home instance”, but it refused to work, which could be due to my own browser’s configuration (it has worked on other articles and instances). So I came back to lemmy.world, and had to scroll manually through several pages, using browser search to find the article. It’d be nice if there was a more direct method of finding a Lemmy discussion from a non-Lemmy webpage.

This morning I watched a video posted on Lemmy about a guy getting a ticket for smoking cannabis in public, I believe in Hollywood. Yet, the GOP congress refuses to “ticket” Trump for his war on Iran. We have a massive difference in how laws are implemented and to whom they are applied. Why would extinction of this inequality be a bad thing?

Can we get back to talking about Epstein?

I understand the article topic is enforced sanctions on third parties. That however was not quite what I was getting at, as my question was about two parties, a buyer and a seller: an atheist entity and a religious entity. Also, I note you didn’t answer my question about the source of your atheism quote.

Atheism is when you accept collective punishment of religious people

What is the source of your quote? Refusing to buy something from a seller is punishment of the seller?

It’s mildly fascinating that an officially atheist country is willing to make big purchases from a theocracy.

Why have human slaves or serfs if robots do everything a human does with fewer mistakes, and no need for sleep or recreation?

Perhaps China has the right idea. AI cannot replace human jobs. Or perhaps government could make Basic income a perpetual reality?

These compounds, prized for their potential health benefits, were hidden among a rich mix of plant chemicals that vary dramatically even between just a few strains.

There’s at least part of the motive for US Congress to have outlawed cannabis seeds. It seems they want certain strains for Big Pharma drugs.

Is there any value in redundancy?

Don’t forget the Stanford Prison Experiment. The problem is the CEOs aren’t like the psychologist running the experiment who brought it to an end when he realized it went too far.

What’s the equivalent of this cardio for our ailing brains? A good candidate is reading. Making sense of written text exercises our minds in important ways. We develop what the cognitive neuroscientist Maryanne Wolf calls “deep reading processes” that rewire and retrain neuronal regions in ways that increase the complexity and nuance of what we’re able to understand. “Deep reading is our species’ bridge to insight and novel thought,” she writes. Perhaps consuming a few dozen book pages a day should become the new 10,000 daily steps — a basic foundation of activity to maintain cognitive fitness.

Honestly I think this read-more tactic has gone too far. Install a word counter and start paying attention to how many words are in news articles. I have been doing that, we have a large number of articles around the 5000 word length, with some significantly more. This opinion piece is over 3100 words, shorter than many articles posted. Assuming a 250 words-per-minute reading speed, this article takes 12 minutes to read. We can easily spend the entire day reading the top news stories in their entireties. In the old days, news items almost always had a lede summarizing the article. Today, many stories keep you reading by not having a lede. When we are reading, we do not have time for activities such as going out and holding up a First Amendment grievance sign, or writing a grievance letter to our legislators. We can all too easily get caught up in stories about Ms. Leavitts supposedly-unflattering double-chin photo, a manufactured controversy, simply as a method of wasting our reading time to stories of little importance to our civics-assigned task of being informed citizens.