FaceDeer

I suspect sabotage would be the best use of most American allies. Pipelines, power lines, railroads, bridges, America has plenty of those just lying around undefended. And many of them are a stiff breeze away from collapsing on their own anyway.

Blowing up or burning down a few might not have much direct impact on America's warfighting capabilities, but forcing the American military to divert huge amounts of manpower to protect all of that would. Not to mention increasing the likely-alreayd-extreme discontent at the government.

And, of course, assassinations when you can manage it. (Ooh, this isn't Reddit, I can say such things without being [ Removed ])

Yeah. Wow, he gave them a car. I guess it's something, but the Catholic Church has a really deep Karmic hole they need to dig their way out of and this is just a teaspoon of dirt.

I don't know how it is with federal elections, but I volunteered in Alberta's recent provincial one and the day after the election we were going around and collecting every single NDP sign we'd put out there first thing in the morning. There's a law about it, and we'd likely be wanting those signs for next election too.

There were very few yard signs for this federal election, not sure why. But I'm seeing a lot of them scattered around as litter still. Maybe federal elections do it completely differently.

That's not what "should" means.

So let each country be powerful enough to rule themselves. I don't see the net benefit of having a single global "ruler."

Extreme fringes make insane demands that are not popular within Alberta, and the headlines say "Albertans demand X!"

It's worth worrying about and opposing, sure, but I assure everyone that plenty of that worrying and opposition is going to come from within Alberta from its actually-sane people.

Why does the world need to be "ruled"?

Bots are capable of simulating offense perfectly well.

You don't see how one leads directly to the other? Full grown adults are the users of those corporations' products. If the corporations aren't allowed to put certain features in those products then that's the same as prohibiting their users from using those features.

Imagine if there was a government regulation that prohibited the sale of cars with red paint on them. They're not prohibiting an individual person from owning a car with red paint, they're not prohibiting individuals from painting their own cars red, but don't you think that'll make it a lot harder for individuals to get red cars if they want them?

You’re acting as if the bot had some sort of intention to help him.

No I'm not. I'm describing what actually happened. It doesn't matter what the bot's "intentions" were.

The larger picture here is that these news articles are misrepresenting the vents they're reporting on by omitting significant details.

Why do you say that? I just did some Googling and it appears to be basically as inert as you can get, it's just dust. The main concerns I saw were industrial environments where there might be a risk of the sheer amount of it causing problems via irritation of mucous membranes and whatnot. A windy day sweeping dust up off the ground would put far more into your lungs than satellite burn-ups would.

And adults too. When you combine "the law says you can't offer this service to children or we'll destroy you" with "there's no way to reliably tell if the people we're offering this service to are children" the result is "guess we can't offer this service to anyone."