I think everyone stopped, we fixed all the problems and then got lots of back pats.

I always attributed it to general education being the real mover. I think as the public became more educated we looked for solutions to help curb use and the decline was the leveling out once people were able to make a more informed decision.

Some folks will always choose to smoke knowing what it is and I think we have just moved closer to that number. Certainly advertising and exposure have a large role to play as well, I just feel as though it’s a whole host of elements that have changed the usage rates.

I feel as though banning something makes certain demographics less likely to take it up but I feel like the measures we had in place already target that crowd. I think we are very close to the market cap on people we can sell abstinence to.

Just my thinking on it, the numbers might bare out different results. I just personally think illegality is not the major barrier to uptake that folks think it is. I would point to coke usage and how ubiquitous it is with young adults in the UK right now.

In the end I think making something illegal that is already on the decline is a misstep, let it fade out on its own rather than call attention to it. People get up in arms about change, a great way to make something popular is to tell folks they can’t have it.

Honestly curious, why pro ban? I don’t smoke/condone smoking but I don’t think of it as so heinous an activity as to be made illegal.

I feel like gambling is a far greater issue and only seems to have it’s popularity on the rise recently.

Smoking falls in my “vices that don’t totally ruin your life” category. Alcohol seems an obvious and fair bit worse a vice so why is there not a call for change there?

I was living in Canada for the change in weed prohibition and all and all seemed like a somewhat positive change overall.

Folks are going to smoke regardless, why give up taxation to pay for the treatment? I only see making it illegal as means to create a criminal element. Once that is robust enough you loose any real ability to regulate as well.

Again, honest question curious if any of this resonates or if you have a completely different view of how the situation will play out.

I have all sorts of anxiety surrounding AI. Most of the anxiety comes from the misuse, copyright issues and departure from critical and creative thinking. However, one of the fields I actually think it could be very useful and of great benefit is medicine.

That being said, I’d be a no as well. The way this is worded and he track record we’ve seen with privacy doesn’t fill me with much confidence. Feels like another instance off loading of thinking rather as a tool for better diagnosis.

It sounds like America from the process. The confluence of commercialization of healthcare and tools that can make it look like time and attention has been used leads to some bad places. I’d be very sceptical about any advice medical or otherwise I recieved.

The unfortunate truth is that without these tools the cost of care will be higher for health companies not using the tools. Which means bespoke human led care will be a luxury in America in the near future. I don’t think it’s a reality you are going to be able to avoid.

I would push back at every opportunity, double check all of the information you are getting, ask pointed “why this” questions, make doctors clearly communicate that they are the ones giving the recommendation. At the end of the day a good doctor with AI tools is likely to do a better job.

Some folks have likened them to Obsidian, isometric rpg to third person scifi action RPG.

If the mechanics are ok, they have done a wonderful job of writing in the past so I’m optimistic.

Fingers crossed!

Oddly it’s the copper wire that is mid

I think they are implying that no matter which shooter it is, most grandmother’s will have absolutely no clue at all. And, that would imply your mentioning the UI is wildly redundant or misguided because any analysis beyond “shooter” is waaaay out of Grandmas depth.

The XKCD just uses an example of people talking about details that are obviously nonsensical to anyone outside the “in group” (molecular sand lattice science people types).

You with your game knowledge, fall into the “in group” in this instance and the additional details are superfluous.

Don’t think it was a dig at you, just a noticed behaviour. We all do it, especially with topics that we are interested in.

Arnie slept with his maid

This is a wild take. Genuinely worried about how you are viewing the folks you interact with.

I spent a fair amount of time working in the food industry. It is way easier to just say what you legitimately would recommend rather then come up with a bizzare lie.

Mate, I felt the same way. Made no sense to me. Give me an “…” or something.

Clearly from not “Canada in the late 80s”

Yes exactly right! I love oil and I think we really need to make sure that everyone gets enough food and medicine so that they can learn about why it’s so great. If we get more money into schools and research we will be the best drillers on the planet. Right makes right!

Yeah, lots of violence begets violence. Thanks for the link, I gave it a quick scan, will have a read later on.

Well as far as understand it’s to do with the strait by Yeman, Bab al-mandab. My very limited “knowledge” is from a very “in the background while doing chores” series of YouTube videos.

Rockets have been fired from Yeman at ships passing through the strait. Countermeasure missile things exsist to stop ships from being exploded but they cost a literal million dollars a go. A large % of oil going to Europe passes through there or has to go south around the Horn of Africa. Either way is beacoup bucks so the texts were about killing the guy that was getting folks together to fire the rockets.

I didn’t gleam much relevent beyond that.

Like for real? Or is a sort of retorical question of how could killing one individual possibly lead to a substantive enough change in the political landscape?

Without any context it or history its just kinda dickish? Like maybe a good burn to a rival in some sort of relevent scenairo but this just sounds like an attempt to belittle someone by “mistaking” them for something “lesser” then when called on it they double down?

Strikes me as grade school level bullying at best 🤷

Tangential… Do you ever think it’s kind of bizzare that we have instances of a fictional character having infamous lines or quotes but in actuality a different human wrote it who and will often not recieve any credit. Not at all a criticism, just an odd thought. Sorry for the diversion.