WoodScientist

Sure it would be difficult. It wouldn't be easy. Like anything, you don't just start with humans. You start with mice and work your way up from there. But you're right, it would I suppose not be a near term thing. But still, for people like Musk, who always insist how they are so concerned with the future 'survival of humanity?' If you're that worried about underpopulation, to the point you're willingly throwing away civil rights, wouldn't such a thing be worth funding, even if it takes a century to figure it out?

Oh Jesus. As this tech gets good enough, eventually people will start falling in love with the damned things. It's inevitable. And eventually they'll want to make it socially acceptable to take their fuck-robots out in public. They'll want to marry the things. They'll be trying to piggyback off the gay and trans rights movements. Everyone will be like, "dude, that is clearly a robot. I can show you the code. There's nobody looking back from behind those plastic eyes." And they'll be like, "no! You just don't understand our love, I know she's real!"

We are so incredibly fucked.

Maybe for the first few, but after awhile it would be common knowledge that raising rents too much magically causes building to burst into flames. Insurance doesn't cover intentional acts. If you deliberately burn your own house down, insurance isn't going to cover that. Plus every insurance policy would exclude coverage for this sort of entirely predictable and preventable fire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motonormativity

Someone probably just got confused by the Ohio Hitlers.

Depends on the fine print of the contract I imagine. "Spread" for instance could be interpreted to only meaning naturally spread. I would argue that if a fire spreads by arson, it isn't the same fire spreading to a new area, but an entirely new fire being formed.

Aww, I was hoping his name was Luigi, just to make things even stranger.

Yes, named for the infamous Dr. Mengele, the German doctor who performed abominable experiments on prisoners during the Franco-Prussian War.

If anyone has access to a genie wish, might I suggest:

"I wish any rental that saw the rent on it raised by more than twice the inflation rate, once it is no longer occupied, would instantly burst into flames and burn to ashes in a way that damages no other rental unit."

I think you mean the Mandala Effect.

You know what. Fuck it. Let's make the world more interesting. Let's legalize consensual cannibalism! We'll regulate it like assisted suicide, so there are safeguards in place to prevent exploitation and such. And you won't be able to pay someone (or their loved ones) in order to let you cannibalize them. But if everyone involved is of sound mind, if there's plenty of time to change your mind, and no one is getting paid or coerced? Have at it! I believe in freedom so much, that if you want to willingly let a cannibal kill and eat you, by God, that should be your right! Let us legalize consensual cannibalism!

I would say that jury nullification isn't just some accident of the legal system, but the primary reason we have juries in the first place.

Judges will say that juries are meant to just decide the simple facts of the case. But what sane person would ever design a system that assigns 12 random untrained nobodies to do that task? If all that mattered was judging the facts of the case, why not have 12 legal scholars instead? Why isn't "juror" a profession, just like being a lawyer or judge is? If we want people to just apply the letter of the law to the facts of a case, why not fill juries with professionals, each who had a legal degree, and who have sat as jurors hundreds of times? Judging evidence and reading law is a skill. And it's one that can be educated on, trained, and practiced. Why do we have amateur juries, when professional juries would clearly do their purported job so much better? Or why not just do what some countries do, and have most or all trials decided solely by judges? What exactly is the point of a jury? Compared to everything else in the courtroom, the jurors, the ones actually deciding guilt or innocence, are a bunch of untrained amateurs. On its face, it makes no damn sense!

No, the true reason, and really the only reason, we have juries at all is so that juries can serve to judge both the accused AND the law. Juries are meant to be the final line of defense against unjust laws and prosecution. It is possible for a law itself to be criminal or corrupt. Legislative systems can easily be taken over by a tiny wealthy or powerful minority of the population, and they can end up passing laws criminalizing behaviors that the vast majority of the population don't even consider to be crimes.

The entire purpose of having a jury is that it places the final power of guilt and innocence directly in the hands of the people. Juries are meant as a final line of defense against corrupt laws passed by a minority against the wishes of the greater majority. An unaccountable elite can pass whatever ridiculous self-serving laws they want. But if the common people simply refuse to uphold those laws in the jury box, those laws are meaningless.

THAT is the purpose of a jury. It is the only reason juries are worth the trouble. A bunch of rank amateurs will never be able to judge the facts of a case better than actual trained legal scholars with years of experience. But by empowering juries, it places the final authority of the law firmly in the hands of the people. That is the value of having a jury at all.

Jury nullification is not just some strange quirk or odd loophole in our justice system. It's the entire reason we have juries in the first place.