But they didn’t go wildly off target - they stayed extremely focussed on the task at hand. Context collapse would have been if they were doing entirely unrelated things. Running a large research project to uncover the method of evaluation and modify logs to hide what was done is the exact opposite.
> Hey, I mean this in as kind a way as possible, but I actually don’t think the government should pay for the fence line!
Which is a fine option, but it should be something agreed to by both parties. You can't just hand over a cost like that, and if you buy property with some kind of agreement this choice is baked into the original price. It makes perfect sense for the government to uphold agreements it has made.
Secondly - if they did own the fence line, it'd be on the government to come and fix it when one of their trees breaks it, surely?
> It makes perfect sense for the government to uphold agreements it has made.
The key question is what is actually in the agreement. 'The state will maintain the fence' doesn't indicate the level of maintenance or the timeliness of said maintenance, it just means the neighbor isn't allowed to do it.
> Secondly - if they did own the fence line, it'd be on the government to come and fix it when one of their trees breaks it, surely?
From discussions I've seen, generally there's no legal responsibility for tree falls, unless there's neglegence like ignoring a clearly failing tree. But leaving a forest to do whatever the forest wants doesn't feel like neglegence.
Your position is that if the government builds a fence it is de facto obligated to maintain it to any abutting property owner's standards in perpetuity?
There is no agreement whatsoever, that's the point. No agreement was made or mentioned. The mere existence of a fence on government property does not constitute an agreement to maintain said fence.
I'm not stipulating anything about abutting property. I'm saying that if the government builds something on their land it is theirs to do with and is on them to maintain it. If they decide to no longer maintain it, that is also their decision. To clarify my point, if someone bought property when the government's fence was intact believing it will always remain so they did not have to build a fence, it is a bad decision on the neighbor's part and not the government's. If you require a fence, the only way to ensure you have a fence is to build and maintain your own fence. There are plenty of examples of the government building something on their land and then walking away and abandoning it when it is no longer needed.
>The mere existence of a fence on government property does not constitute an agreement to maintain said fence.
Can you imagine the sneering and hand wringing that would ensue in the comments if you tried to make such an argument about private property?
If a private landowner failed to maintain anything that was created by man (as opposed to nature) they'd say things like "public nuisance", "blighted", "antisocial" and all the other buzzword people of that bent love to use.
I don't really care what the standard is. If some standard is good enough to be worth legislating enforcing then it ought to apply equally to all land owners regardless of public or private.
It seems like everyone here is literally conjuring up first an agreement, and now laws out of thin air. What law is the state exempting itself?
Anyway tree law is super, super well-established and it works the same way for private parties. Your neighbor's trees are none of your business until they are on your property, and then they're exclusively your business (except you can't structurally damage or kill the tree e.g. by cutting roots that cross onto your property).
You clearly have some strange bone to pick. You should pick it elsewhere.
This is a bit black and white. We do things all the time that have some level of risk, and draw vague lines about where this crosses into negligence. My cars brakes might fail, right? But it wouldn’t be typically called my fault - unless the chance was heightened because I’d not maintained it, or had been warned the brake fluid seemed to be leaking.
You cannot guarantee a robot could get items without paying. You can’t really guarantee anything in basically any scenario.
You can’t guarantee your card will work at the end of a meal or that your wallet won’t have been stolen, or while you were out someone stole all your money at the bank. There’s a chance those things happen, so do you never go for a meal?
Again there’s clearly levels where it is your fault, because you were negligent. If the robot goes mad and smashes up the place one in 3 times, obviously you can’t do it.
This is where we do things like trials, have approvals, etc so that we can make reasonable adjustments to lower downsides, plan things like insurance and then move on with our lives rather than never doing anything because it’s possible there’s a problem.
Yes, this is why we have a legal system with a lot of human judgment, because it isn't black and white.
I think we need (and that there is likely to be) some test cases, and probably some new legislative text, that shift the incentive structure that people are evaluating risks against.
From reading your comment, I don't think you and I disagree at all, for what it's worth. I don't see anything here that I disagree with.
> The UK typically doesn't need air conditioning, so why would people spend money on it? Yes, I know this recent summer was exceptionally hot but people don't react that quickly to changes.
We are? It’s becoming more common and we had a few bad summers and earlier this year too. The heat wave a few years back killed my dad.
Given there’s a push to swap heating systems for more efficient ones, air con units are being looked at a lot more.
Air conditioners are heat pumps. Not all heat pumps are air conditioners.
Common installations reuse the wet systems we have and are air to water, which was until recently the only thing the grants covered (and now it’s still lower for a2a).
Model announcement pages are the absolute worst. This has to be some kind of inside joke among labs, they're trying to see who can build the shittiest page.
The "Explore the latest" section is nearly blank for me - are there supposed to be diagrams or visual aids, or is it one headline and sentence taking up the whole page on cards?
I feel like there's got to be something more core around how many things we could make revertable. You can't "un-leak" a document, but you could reverse financial transactions / structure as escrow, and we know that having version control removes certain permanent loss scenarios.
Sometimes this may be just law. In the UK we have "direct debit" from accounts which fundamentally lets companies I approve take money from my account - as much as they choose. But the way of managing that risk is that banks will immediately and in full refund any money taken if I say so. Frankly lots of payment is the same online, we hand over enough information for the other party to take money from us, rather than explicitly sending it - with guarantees that we can get it back if it shouldn't have been allowed.
reply