GeneralVincent

Yeah Doug was just a tenuous reference to Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy's secret Ruler of the Universe.

I agree, AI is problematic. In theory, that could work in my favor if I train it to be secretly biased towards my beliefs, and put in safeguards to prevent it from being retrained or removed. But I imagine in the real world that would fail spectacularly.

No system can be perfect with imperfect humans and bad actors at its core, and I don't really think AI should have any power over humans. Sorry, I kinda brought this down a rabbit hole away from the original point of the post lol

Ah, well if enforcement is part of the thought experiment then that's only a couple extra amendments. The clear enemy of fascism is democracy;

• Enforcement is led by an oversight committee that is democratically elected by the general population every four years

• The oversight committee is overseen by an AI trained in intellectual honesty, ethics, and democracy

• The AI is periodically trained and updated by Doug, a Minnesota resident who answers Survey Monkey questions on his opinion of ethics and democracy and is unaware of the consequences of his responses. Only the AI knows. No one else must know. Human bias has been conquered and postage peace has been achieved.

Not who you replied to, but let me give it a try if you don't mind.

• All promotional mail must clearly state the organization it was created by and its intent. • Claims made to support that intent must be followed by evidence from an independent and peer reviewed journal, study, or survey from within the past 20 years and clearly cite those sources. • And must provide at least one source that disagrees with the claim if one exists.

If I can't stop fascists sending mail, I'll make sure the recipient has some tools and knowledge to debunk their bullshit. Also it will filter out low effort bullshit, and make factually wrong discrimination more difficult.

I understand that. I'm reading way too many laws already lol

If the letter is determined to be unlawful, there's a provision that allows Canadian Post to not deliver the letter. It's a whole process that the mail carriers did not follow. Maybe if they had tried, and used the argument that it was unlawful discrimination or harassment to deliver the fliers, they would have had a leg to stand on. It seems that they didn't, they took matters into their own hands, and they were punished accordingly.

To be more clear, I'm not arguing against the punishment. Just the fliers and if they could be considered unlawful

Well I'm not too well versed on Canadian federal laws as I'm a bit further south. So I looked into discrimination laws in New Brunswick, Canada and found this Human Rights Act

Some parts that could be relevant;

The New Brunswick Human Rights Act is the provincial law that prohibits discrimination and harassment based on 16 protected grounds of discrimination.

The Act prohibits discrimination in the following five areas under the provincial jurisdiction: Employment (includes job ads and interviews, working conditions, and dismissals); Housing (e.g. rent and sale of property); Accommodations, services, and facilities (e.g. hotels, schools, restaurants, government services, libraries, stores, etc.); Publicity; and, Professional, business or trade associations (e.g. Nurses Association of New Brunswick, New Brunswick Teachers' Association, New Brunswick College of Physicians, etc.).

Publicity includes any publications, displays, notices, signs, symbols, emblems that show discrimination or an intention to discriminate against any person or class of persons

Not a lawyer or expert, but that seems to apply at least superficially. Maybe a bit of a stretch. But it helps that the fliers were full of factually wrong and hateful anti-trans myths. And freedom of speech has limits, even federally.

ETA: However, mail carriers are probably exclusively covered by federal law, and the federal Canadian Human Rights Act ~~only seems to specify discrimination and not harassment. I do think it's too much of a stretch to say this would be covered by any federal laws~~

Final edit: ok I read more. This is the closest thing I could find from the federal Human Rights Act

12 It is a discriminatory practice to publish or display before the public or to cause to be published or displayed before the public any notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that (a) expresses or implies discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or (b) incites or is calculated to incite others to discriminate

If I am misinterpreting it, please let me know. I think it could be used as an argument tho

No where does that source say Biden tried to shut down the Internet. The closest is this part

Donald Trump publicly advocated that “in some places” we have to talk about “closing up the Internet.” He got his wish, but it came after him personally following his election in 2016. The very free speech about which he made fun turned out to be rather important to him and his cause.

Also I can't take a site seriously when one of their sources they link to is the Twitter user "End Wokeness"

There are some parts I agree with, but there's plenty there that's right wing dog whistles for "I want to say hateful things and have no consequences" free speech

And your ad hominem of saying Kamala was making stupid faces that pissed you off and sounded like a whiney bitch confirms you have nothing intelligent/important to add either.

Sometimes it's not an echo chamber, and you're just wrong. Not about the spin put on the headline, just in general.

Yes, like a monkey throwing shit exposes the surrounding victims to e coli, you are exposing us to your views. Thank you brother

They said it CAN be a nightmare when it's bad weather. Being a parent is hard, and there are parts that are mentally, physical, and emotionally exhausting. Especially when they're so young they could die just sleeping the wrong way.

You're being unnecessarily obtuse and combative. It brings nothing to the table and alienates the people you're talking to. If you want to be taken seriously, try approaching the subject with a little bit of maturity and empathy. You can even have the same message that someone isn't right to have kids, without coming across like a random asshole on the Internet

Also a pretty easy meal if you have depression

For the IAU records on Wikipedia, yeah. A couple things to keep in mind, 80% of the people who complete an ultra marathon are male. And the gap between the sexes, some estimate around 4% for ultra marathons, seems to be trending down.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicholas-Tiller/publication/348547781_Do_Sex_Differences_in_Physiology_Confer_a_Female_Advantage_in_Ultra-Endurance_Sport/links/6002ea5c92851c13fe1514f7/Do-Sex-Differences-in-Physiology-Confer-a-Female-Advantage-in-Ultra-Endurance-Sport.pdf

Here's better research I found. You're right, men still win more often and have the records. But honestly it's more complicated than just who is faster.

It's in the ultra marathons that women keep up with men and sometimes beat them

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-49284389