When losing a driver’s license means losing a job and access to groceries, the standards have to be lowered. Even as low as they are, people with suspended licenses still mostly drive, because our infrastructure requires it to live. Better public transit is the only path to giving bad drivers a way to participate in society without having to drive.

Or less. Alaska’s dividend program is a couple thousand a year and significantly reduces its poverty rate.

Defining living expenses is tough. If everyone is homeless, getting them a studio or tiny house seems basic, but if everyone is in a studio, getting them into a one bedroom seems basic. If everyone struggles to get enough clean water to drink, having water for drinking and washing seems basic, but if everyone has plenty of wash water then they want pools and irrigated golf courses. The way human brains are programmed with a hedonistic treadmill means we will never feel like 100% of our living expenses are covered. But every sustainable bit of help we can set up society to deliver makes our society richer.

Has this always been the case, or is it a new thing? If always, some of the other comments have some suggestions around neurodivergence. If new, it might be due to stress - if I am drained from work and basic household maintenance and just feeding myself, I have no brain cells left to care about anything else. The caring comes back if I manage to work in more rest time per week.

The current iteration of agentic AI technology used by Logitech is little more than a glorified note-taking bot capable of summarizing meetings and “generating” the occasional idea.

Given that most humans hate note-taking and avoid it, but it has a lot of value as a meeting output, getting a machine to do it makes sense.

I also heard a podcast where a consulting company couldn’t get their client contact to make any decisions because he wanted his CEO to review, but she had a busy schedule and was never available. The consultants trained an AI on this CEOs writings, and presented it to their client contact. The model was convincing enough the client felt comfortable making decisions. I thought that was interesting, and this article refers to something similar with models of stakeholders.

Some people believe if more than x people are killed, whether the deaths are x number or 2x or x^2 doesn’t make any difference: once we reach x, it’s maximum horrible. Actions that reduce from something greatly more than x to something slightly more than x are not worth pursuing, because the deaths are still more than x, which is max horrible, so those actions don’t matter.

Other people believe that any senseless death avoided is always worthwhile, and support actions that reduce the volume of senseless death. Even if a lot of killing still happens, it’s positive to reduce it.

I can’t tell if you are in the first group, or if you really lack the context of active conflicts the US is involved in with hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths that you cannot imagine anything worse than 4,000 deaths.

It’s not about the driver experience, it’s about the road inspection. If the patient has a pre-cancerous polyp the inspector sees, they will cut it out, problem averted. If the patient has a pre-cancerous polyp obscured by stool, it gets missed and then in a few years turns to cancer. And survival rates for colon cancer are depressingly low.

In just over two years (January 2011 to March 2013) the Republican-controlled House voted 54 times to repeal the ACA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_repeal_the_Affordable_Care_Act#Vote_Total_Summary

There was never any path for those votes to progress into law, but they’ve valued repetitive voting performance for decades at this point. I get doing it once - get representatives on the record with a position - but am baffled that so many voters value the repetition that Republicans keep employing this strategy.