@UwU's banner p

UwU


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 01:02:21 UTC

				

User ID: 329

UwU


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 01:02:21 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 329

What I'm okay with: Enforcing immigration laws, deporting illegal immigrants. I'm fine with "breaking up families", arresting people at their workplaces, and deporting parents of citizen children with them in tow.

What I'm not okay with: Masked men in plainclothes forcibly ushering people into unmarked vans. As long as they are unmasked and wearing uniforms, or unmasked, plainclothed and are obligated to give their full name and badge/ID upon request, I'd have no problem with it. Yes they may lose the intimidation factor, but it's a necessary trade-off compared to normalizing mask wearing thugs kidnapping people off the streets.

Also, my P(Doom|no slowdown) is like 0.95-0.97

I think the main point of contention is this. As evidenced by discussions up and down this thread, for most people, the number is closer to 0.05 than 0.95, so there's no political will to do the other things you suggest. A real-world example: Anthropic. When the OpenAI engineers quit the company because it wouldn't slow down for safety, they didn't shoot the remaining employees, instead they created a competitor to sprint faster with the belief that if they reach AGI first, it'll be better aligned for humanity.

What if you believe that when you reach the finish line, there's a 5% chance that the track will blow up, but if the other guys reach the finish line first, there's a 10% chance the track will blow up. Also you believe the other guys don't take the risks seriously so they won't stop running. Is "sprint harder" a valid option?

The denial of cert is likely strategic for the conservative justices. Alito and Thomas will probably strike down the assault weapons bans but the rest (Barrett, Roberts, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) probably couldn't get a clear 3/4 majority in favor of repealing the bans. Therefore for the ban proponent justices, it's better to deny cert and revisit until the court make-up changes, or at least until the current dissenters change their minds, rather than bringing the issue to a vote today, and have assault weapons bans be upheld.