Huberman has also espoused nicotine's benefits, so before someone reading this runs headfirst into a nicotine addiction, please be aware of the withdrawl symptons.
Don't forget the many, many negative issues SOME people get from nicotine.
I loved nicotine, but it terribly exacerbates my rheumatoid arthritis in my hands, inflames blood vessels in my lower arms (to the point of waking with my arms completely numb in the middle of the night) and gives me terrible heart palpitations that woke me up (if I consumed nicotine a few hours before bed).
I had to get some surgery on my fingers, and the staff seemed relieved to learn I don't smoke. Something about narrowing blood vessels making this kind of operation less successful. Not sure if they were just trying to cheer me up or it's an actual thing :-)
Fire and EMS demands have more impact on our built environment than I see in these comments.
Some of this is direct from land use regulations. Some of this is from political influence of Fire depts.
It's only recently that people are waking up to how the regulatory requirements of staircase design in multi-family buildings for the ostensible purpose of evacuation impact the look and feel of US cities.
Same for street widths. You will rarely find support from fire depts. for compact and connected streets.
AFAIK for US cities, street and intersection size are restricted by the turning circle of American fire trucks, and large cities can't buy European/Asian firetrucks due to buy america
I will always take any opportunity to shit on buy america and how it hamstrings infrastructure projects for the sake of running a jobs program for flyover towns
Going underground is not a solution to rising temperatures. The reason why it’s good at keeping its temperature somewhat constant is because it is a poor heat conductor.
It’s fine for a cellar or something like that but larger structures still require air conditioning. See for example the London Underground where they have issues with the deep underground lines heating up over the years.
A major problem with the London Underground is the thermal energy introduced by trains and support equipment itself.
Spaces inhabited just by people and incidental devices (e.g., LED lighting, fans, personal electronics) should see far less heating effect, particularly if they're well-ventilated such that any accumulated heat could transfer out quickly.
Houses have had cellars and basements for centuries if not longer, and those aren't known for getting uncomfortably warm.
For large enough subterranean structures, air exchange becomes a challenge.
One place this is evident is with naturally-formed caves, where changes in atmospheric air pressure translate to air movements in and out of the caverns themselves, one consequence of which is the many "moaning caverns" --- the airflow and resonances are sufficient to create audible sounds associated with the movement. It can take hours for pressure to equalise if the volumes and apatures are sufficiently divergent.
Warm air will rise, and cold sink, yes, but if there are any trap-type structures (e.g., a tunnel which rises then descends again) the rising/falling air will be trapped at a local maximum or minimum. This is directly comparable to a thermal inversion associated with smog and urban pollution, often occurring during winter time. The only way around this is forced or active ventilation.
You've also got the "stale air" problem. If there's only a single entrance, or entrances are only on one part of the cave complex, air as a whole moves in and out of the caverns, but the deepest and furthest recesses see relatively little interchange. This leads to one of the hazards of spelunking in the event noxious gasses accumulate or oxygen is displaced.
For the London Underground (and other subway systems), much of the air exchange is provided by the trains themselves, through the "piston effect" of a trainset moving through a low-clearance tunnel. You'll experience this as the gust of wind which preceeds a train's arrival, or the suction as it leaves a platform. This effects some thermal transfer, but mechanical ventilation is still required.
Non-transport-oriented underground or partially-subgrade structures typically have far more relative air transfer, and would generally have less-signficant airflow / air exchange challenges, though I suspect there's still quite a bit of HVAC engineering involved, for thermal and other reasons (stale room-space air, radon emissions, mould & moisture, etc.).
Even then, it would surely take centuries for the cost of building underground to be paid off in power savings from the cost of air conditioning. Who's going to plan that far ahead, especially in the middle of unpredictable climate change where even the underground option might turn out to be the wrong one for some reason before it's paid off?
Not sure about the American southwest, but here in Europe we not only have heat waves, but also periods of heavy rain causing (more and more) severe flooding. I rather see everything on stilts in the future ;-/
You've been watching "the 12 monkeys" ? Or just read PKD's "The Penultimate Truth" ? Or even just "Terminator" because that seems to be about humanity's life underground. Or even the polish film "sexmission" from 1984. Or maybe Stanslaw Lem's "memoir found in a bathtub" about the pentagon 5 layers deep underground...
I think this comment is not intending to be anything other than curious, but it strikes me with a bit of techno-savior assimilation sentiment. These autonomous tribes have plenty of opportunities to reach out to modern western culture when they are interested in doing so. Suggesting how they should "enter into the modern world over some generations" seems presumptious, even culturally aggressive.
The last Australian deep desert tribe to discover that their continent had been colonized by white people was in 1984. When they realized that extended family members from other groups had been living with running water (and sugar!) for years while they were out in the desert, they were pissed. Only one member of the group chose not to join modern society.
I think there's a savior complex on both sides, both intervention and non-intervention. In general, humans tend to think they know what's best for other people no matter what the situation is.
I tend to agree with your assessment that the balls in their Court and they can do what they want
why do they have to understand the long term implications to have control over their own lives.
nobody has perfect information. that is the human condition. We dont know the future: how our lives will develop, how our marriages will end, what our kids will be like, and when and how we will die.
understanding the short term implications is already hard enough.
for example assuming they are granted to own the land they live on, we could not just let them sell the right to logging and let others destroy their land. so we need to be careful which the choices we allow them to make. eg, if they want to move into the city, fine, but then we need to make sure they can reverse that decision and go back, or at least continue some of their lifestyle. iaw: the problem is irreversible decisions that are difficult to understand.
but also problems caused by learning about alcohol, depending on government support, education that doesn't respect their culture and knowledge, etc.
so my approach would be to teach them knowledge they can use to improve their lives, introduce them to the idea that others live in other ways, but also that it takes an effort to change their lifestyle. like they will have to learn new trades in order to get jobs and earn an income if they want to do that.
I think there is a little bit of a "Prime Directive" at play (which may be a rehashing of your thesis). Uncontacted peoples are also highly sought by researchers for scientific investigation (which human traits are due to our culture and which aren’t?). There’s also the reality that economic interests may eventually force the issue and these people may be "relocated" to support mining, logging, fishing.
Yes, the description of the linked video mentions the tribe is being encroached upon by logging interests, so this entire conversation is moot. Capitalism will kill them soon enough, either through assimilation or extermination.
Radical cultural relativism is rooted in a profound ignorance of human cognition: it is true for every human, who has ever lived, that a more precise empirical knowledge of the world is preferable. It is even likely that we might also learn from them (e.g medicinal use of undocumented amazonian plants, or even just ingenious ways of structuring language and social organisation).
In the past, this particular aspect co-occurred with colonial genocide and economic exploitation. But that is not an excuse to stipulate that there isn’t an objective benefit to the progress of understanding and culture.
You write as if economic exploitation was somehow off the table. But economic exploitation isn't restricted to outright slavery, not at all.
Trade is disastrous when suddenly all local production has to compete with hyper efficient imports, but there's no export to really pay for imports. The damage to local production happens despite the imbalance. Repeatedly give a man a fish and sooner or later he will forget everything he ever knew about fishing.
Of course they have a market. Not a market of real estate bubbles and NFTs, that's for sure, but a market of skills and cooperation. They may not have much job specialisation (or they do, difficult to tell without contacting), but even without, different levels in experience and physical fitness will make that a market nonetheless.
And what level of experience we are looking at! Remember the 10000h rule? Imagine a group developing exactly one skill set since childhood. Trained by a chain of ancestors following the same path that would make the Bene Gesserit blush.
This would all collapse under contact. A few years of handouts and/or one-time trades and nothing of those abilities would be left. And those years would be far too short to find a place in the new (to them) market above that of beggars and thieves. They would have trouble even working as prostitutes not knowing the cultural codes around that.
Apologies for the wall of text, but your reply triggered something I've been thinking about a lot recently.
I agree with you on many points, but the word "preferable" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. It doesn't describe who it is preferable to, or how objective outcomes inform people's preferences, or whether this preference only exists when it is non-uniformly distributed across the world.
I believe that more precise empirical knowledge of the world is preferable, but I don't think it generalises - or naturalises - to human cognition. Or that it is causally related to reduction of colonial genocide and economic exploitation.
Anecdotally, I know a number of people who prefer their "objectively better" life courtesy of vigorous anti-intellectualism, conspiracy, religious fundamentalism, internalised naturalisation of race/gender/faith/etc. And other cognitive distortions - as I would call them.
Again though, I agree with you because I believe (among other things) that less human suffering is preferable, increased longevity is preferable, our species surviving longer is preferable, and other species surviving with us is also preferable. And I believe more precise empirical knowledge is the best way to achieve those things.
But many, many people disagree, and many just believe differently. As far as we know, that disagreement is not due to a kind of naturalised deficiency of cognition.
Even the most strictly enforced religions couldn’t avoid cults and schisms. The progress of understanding really seems inevitable. You can only gaslight yourself for so long, into denying the natural predisposition of the human cognition to change, when presented with new information.
Centrally planned governments with ministries of truth cost nearly 100 million lives in the 20th century. People die when the government decides what’s the truth.
You're describing what happens without checks and balances. An independent judiciary routinely determines what is and isn't true. It is arguably one of the most fundamental functions of government to determine agreed upon truth.
People dies when politicians lie.
People dies when politicians decide what's the truth.
What is proposed here is that the truth is decided on a judicial trial based on facts and proofs.
If you think it will not work because the politicians control the judicial system, then this new law is 100% harmless, because they can already very easily arrest their opponent by just saying "they killed an old lady, let's have a trial to see if they are a murderer".
> decided on a judicial trial based on facts and proofs
Lawyers are expensive. Lawsuits are painful and time consuming.
If you can tie your opponent up in court - whether they win or lose becomes irrelevant - because you prevented them from spending time and money in the campaign. Further, if you have a friendly (or they have a hated) journalist, now you have coverage and headlines that are negative towards them.
Sure, but you can already tie your opponent up in court by accusing them to be drug dealers or having embezzled party money.
It does not happen, because there is a political cost of the public opinion of doing that.
If indeed your opponent has done nothing wrong, it will be obvious to the public and clear that you are a piece of sh*t. If you have enough power that you don't care about that, then you already have plenty of other ways, way easier and efficient, to get rid of your political opponents.
It’s much harder to do that, because it requires evidence of physical conduct. It’s much easier to just label something that’s an opinion to be an assertion of truth that can be prosecuted.
Don't miss the forest for the tree. There are plenty of sentences said by politicians that are easily ground for attacking them for libel. So, if you find excuses to reject some of my example, you can just do a little bit of effort and you will find yourself other examples where politicians had opportunities to attack their opponent based on a superficial accusation.
And also, this is not how it works: you cannot start a trial just by labeling an opinion to be an assertion of truth, the same way you cannot start a trial by just saying "I consider that grass blades are human, so my political opponent who has mown their lawn are murderers". You can bring the case to the authorities, but they will be the one deciding if it's an offense or not, and your political opponent will not be tied up in court until then.
I have a pretty clear understanding that the crazy misuses that some people are pretending will happen are obvious and will not happen because it's basic law making.
It's like saying "they say they want a new law that reduce car speed to Xmph on those new kind of road, it's crazy, it means that they can fine me if I run too fast on GTA5". It does not mean that I have sources or insider knowledge when I say that it is unrealistic because it never happened with plenty of similar and that if they can do that, why don't they arrest you when you run over pedestrians in GTA5.
> I have a pretty clear understanding that the crazy misuses that some people are pretending will happen are obvious and will not happen because it's basic law making.
Then steel man your argument. Every example you give is a wild far-fetched one that is clearly away from any area of ambiguity or debate.
Challenge yourself by looking at the grey areas and explain where the line should be.
That's quite a reversal when you are steel-manning your argument by pretending that the large majority of politicians and legalists in Wales are so much uneducated that they did
not notice this obvious misuse that you, you have noticed.
Just to be clear: there are grey areas in the question of "what is the truth", but this is not new, as "what is the truth" is the job of the judicial system since forever. The judicial system is built around that, around the fact that what is true for someone is not always true for someone else and how to find a good balance.
You presume incorrectly both my reasoning and my conclusion.
I believe 100% that they see and understand how this can be misused. That's their intent. They likely believe this is a weapon they can use against their rivals while also believing it can never be turned against them.
From working in DC for 10 years - through PATRIOT, McCain-Feingold, NDAA (various), and more both on the Hill and at Justice - I learned there are two political parties in DC but not the ones you suppose. It's really incumbents/establishment vs challengers. Prior to 2016, most of the other stuff was just noise.
*Btw, you've been explaining judicial procedure to a number of lawyers on this thread. It's amusing but unproductive.
You know that "they" refer to more than just "the politicians in power", but to the whole people involved, including opposition, small parties, independent law specialists, ...
Maybe you see that from the US point of view where politics is reduced to a pathetic childish power fight. But the fact that in US any single law has the potential to oppress people does not mean that in other places, normal laws cannot be a good thing. The problem is not in this law proposal, the problem is that in US the situation is very bad.
edit: also, are you really saying that they want to manipulate and lie to the citizen and that the best way they've found is to ... make lying to the citizen more difficult? They could push for plenty of laws with the excuse of security or helping the economy or ... that can be misuse to attack their opposition without being able to be used against them. Honestly, if indeed they are pushing this law because they will think it's easier for them to lie with this law than without, they probably not smart enough to use it properly and this law is, again, at worst harmless.
> You can bring the case to the authorities, but they will be the one deciding if it's an offense or not, and your political opponent will not be tied up in court until then.
You forget that the "authorities" are appointed by politicians.
If you're left-wing, would you be comfortable being tried by someone appointed by Trump?
If you're right-wing, would you be comfortable being tried by someone appointed by Biden?
(Please forgive the US references, I'm not familiar with Welsh politics and don't know the names of politicians who would cause similar fear in political opponents there.)
----
Edit:
Rather than arguing about hypotheticals or foreign equivalents, let's consider a specific case cited in TFA:
> During the debate, the Labour member Alun Davies accused the leader of the Tories in Wales, Andrew RT Davies, of tweeting a “direct lie” earlier on Tuesday that Labour want to pay illegal immigrants £1,600 a month.
In fact, Labour did pay £1,600 a month to certain immigrants who were seeking, but had not yet been granted, asylum. The only "lie" in question is the use of the term "illegal immigrants". That's the kind of blurry political line that Labour wants to criminalize.[1]
And it's a far, far more blurry line than murder. It's almost certain to be decided solely based on the political beliefs of the judge and jury.
I'm not talking about corruption here. I'm talking about the kind of controversial questions where "truth" is really open to debate.
Again, if the authorities are in the pocket of the politicians, then they could already today declare it's a murder when a politician says their opponent has cut a blade of grass and it is a murder.
This is what I don't understand: if indeed the authorities are in the pocket of the politicians, how this law change anything, they already have plenty of easier way to attack their opponents.
In US, the mentality is very bad and people may have low morality and ethic. In Europe, being appointed by a politician does not mean you will be their lackey.
But it is not even that: it's not like someone can just say "got you! now you will be trialed by my friend Ben". There are several layers before and after that mean that an accusation is only prosecuted when there is a large consensus that the prosecution is justified.
I know that in US the lines are very blurred because each politician is saying "it's a political trial" even when there is credible ground to investigate, but that's more a question of people being uneducated than a real system. In the large majority of the cases (there is always one or two outliers that don't prove much), every big prosecutions on politicians in US are "normal" and would have happened even in a parallel universe where their political opponents were not touching any judicial string.
The “authorities” aren’t “in the pocket of politicians.” But we have seen all over the developed world that they’re human, and not neutral, and suffer from their own ideological biases. Moreover, the “fact checkers” tend to come from the same social and economic class, which heightens their biases.
Again, then this law is totally harmless: if indeed people are biased when they decide if someone lies or not, it does not matter if there is a law on it.
Again: if you are claiming that this law will harm opposition, then you are not saying that "human are not neutral", you are saying that everyone involved in the process are magically all aligned in exactly on side. If there are people biased "in the other direction", then they will be biased to say the accused is innocent, and it cancels out.
The politician said that "[the Welsh government is] dishing out £1,600 to anyone who wants to rock up and claim they are crossing the Channel illegally".
As your article states, on the 635 persons who received this money, only 67 were migrant, the 568 others were not migrant at all.
So, no, it's not a blurry line: they had a grant that was targeting children, with 90% of the beneficiaries being good ol' locals, and this politician invented that they are giving 1600 to all illegal migrants that claim they crossed the Channel illegally, which is totally incorrect any ways you turn it around.
You are incorrect when you say "the only incorrect thing is 'illegal'" (you probably just read the last sentence without realizing that they just say that _some_ migrants got the grant): not only this grant is not going to illegal migrant, it is also not going to all migrants (only a small fraction qualifies), and it's not even FOR the migrants, it is for the children, including, in big majority, the local ones. Additionally, the politician said that you can just "rock up and claim you are crossing the Channel illegally" to get this money, which is obviously not true.
On top of that, this politician was contacted to explain to him that this grant was not for migrant and certainly not given by just rocking up, so he was totally aware that it was misleading. But he continued to insist on his fantasy. So, it is also a good example that this law does not target honest mistake, but people who don't care if what they say is misleading or not.
If what you say is just a "blurred line with the truth open to debate", then the following sentence is also "just a blurred line":
"the Tories are cutting taxes for people who wants to rock up and claim they are crossing the Channel illegally"
just because they indeed proposed to reduce tax in UK. After all, legal migrant will also benefit from this tax cut, and in fact you will not have this cut by "rocking up and claiming you are crossing the Channel illegally", so, by your own standard, this sentence is perfectly fine.
In fact, thank you for bringing this example: this is a good example of how some politicians are stirring fear and hatred based on total fabrications, and it is a good example showing that these politicians should paid the consequences of their actions and be punished.
> What is proposed here is that the truth is decided on a judicial trial based on facts and proofs.
Justice systems are not designed to decide on such broad and open-ended questions that arise in politics all the time. Questions like mask-wearing or not, WMDs in Iraq, Wuhan COVID origins, whether capitalism is harmful or not... does God exist... The list goes on. A much better proposal is to improve public education, fund journalism, enforce transparency in government, separation of corporate lobbying from the state, etc. A final arbiter on "truth" is chilling to democracy, and besides it, violates Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. It's also anti science.
Nobody is asking the justice systems to answer these questions.
I think the problem in the discussion here is that some people see that _in some cases_ we cannot tell what is true or not, and conclude, incorrectly, that the law we are talking about is pretending that in such case, someone will have to say "it's true" or "it's false". That's ridiculous.
If there is no way to know if it's true or false, THE JUSTICE SYSTEMS WILL SIMPLY SAYS "WE CANNOT TELL, CASE DISMISSED".
This idea that there will be a "final arbiter" that will flip a coin for open-ended question is just really really really stupid: the justice system IS ALREADY EXPOSED TO THAT and does not act in this stupid way.
For all of the examples you have given, there are other laws that would allow people to sue. If someone is forced to wear a mask by their boss, they may try to sue based on "abusive employer" laws. If someone believe the capitalism is harmful, they can certainly sue based on "assault and battery". ... They can try to sue, but they will get their case dismissed, not because the justice has answered the question on mask-wearing or whether capitalism is harmful, but because the justice has concluded it's an open question.
But it is not what the law we are talking about is about. It is not "deciding if X is true or false", it is "had the politician indeed the believable proofs that what they were saying was recognized as truth".
You make 2 errors:
1) you don't understand that the conclusion is not "this is true or this is false", but "this is true, this is false, or this is not possible to tell if it's true or false".
2) you don't understand that it is not because it is impossible to know if X is true or false that someone cannot lie about X. It is impossible for me to know how old you are, but if I say "I know that calf is 21 years old", then, I'm lying. Even if you are 21 years old, I have lied, because I did NOT know it. And it is easy to prove it, even if you are 21 years old, as you can demonstrate that I'm not in position to even know who you are.
It is entirely legal to shout fire in a crowded theater, and the case in which that was mentioned positively was one that jailed people for speaking against the WWI draft.
It is not, however, legal to lie when you've sworn in court to not lie, whether or not people get hurt. The rationale for making deliberate lying illegal for politicians is because they're your sworn representatives in government, or vying to be, not because it hurts people. Any number of legal things you can do will result in claims of hurt from other people.
Punished by the same people who punishes all the other infractions.
The same way doctors are punished if they are abusing their patients, or drug dealers who are selling drugs, or rioters that burn cars, or ...
No one is going to build a brand new parallel tribunal to just process the infractions on this law, and it will never fly as it is a clear violation of power separation.
If now you are saying that the current judicial system is controlled by the politicians in power, then this law is harmless: they can already arrest their opponent by just saying "they killed an old lady, let's have a trial to see if they are a murderer"
So you're suggesting that politicians lying be tried (with prosecutorial discretion) by a jury of their peers in order to determine whether a lie was told? How would this law be written? Would politicians be imprisoned for giving a deceptive compliment? eg. "No, that dress doesn't make you look fat at all"
You realize that lies are already illegal in plenty of other situations. For example, lawyers and doctors cannot lie or deliberately deceive. Or you can be prosecuted if you lie when under oath. You know that no lawyer or doctor are arrested for saying "no, that dress doesn't make you look fat at all", right?
It is just extending the laws that already apply to parliament or judicial system to a broader set of situation easily identifiable. Pretending that it is equivalent to be able to raid a political opponent because they said "that dress doesn't make you look fat" is just ridiculous.
We already deal with these situations, and there are easy and proven solutions to avoid misuse.
This is just an engineer's disease argument, using "extension" to do all the intellectual work of justifying the position. It's a pseudo explanation and works like how all misinformation works, using specious logic. Ironic given the topic of this thread.
Two anecdotes followed by an opinion, responded to with another opinion and anecdote. There is not any meaningful argument about 'truth' going on there.
And you trust the people making these decisions to agree about what’s an opinion and what’s an assertion of fact? When they can put their political opponents in jail by blurring that distinction?
The "reader added context" below that post seems on point. It is an opinion, not a fact. I assume the graph is accurately representing truth. It is a decent demonstration of the old saw about lies, damn lies, and statistics, but it is real numbers, real dates, and the metric is described specifically. Excellent for misleading, but still truth.
The assertions that "we won" or it is "over" or it was "at very little cost" are all one man's opinions, however.
Homelessness is a choice. Just compare Germany where there is a right to housing to the US. All homeless people in Germany are homeless by choice, usually because they are severely mentally ill.
Btw. guess who has more homeless people Germany or the US.
There are no traits that distinguish us from other animals. We're just a little bit smarter than apes, elephants, and dolphins, which has pushed us past a tipping point into civilization.
Our societies are still ecosystems, and cannot escape from the rules thereof. Competition, hierarchy, and economic inequality are emergent properties of ecosystems. There's nothing inhumane or immoral about an ecosystem.
A bit as in: on the spectrum of civilization-capable organisms, between bacteria and human beings, we're only a bit ahead of dolphins, which is where the tipping point happens to be. Aside from dolphins et al, this space was also occupied by our hominid ancestors.
It took us ~50,000 years to get to computers. We're not biologically different from humans then. Civilization itself is a new mechanism of transmitting information that dolphins do not possess (because they've not passed the tipping point) which allows transmission and accumulation across generations exponentially faster than DNA and culture (which dolphins do possess). We're also anatomically rather more suited to building things than dolphins.
This is an example where I'm skeptical that AI will be able to "appreciate" craft. Situationally aware enough to identify and articulate what makes these features notable. There's so much context baked into identifying these features.
> I had a boss once that owned the building to the business and charged rent to ensure zero profit.
This is common and legal structure designed to, among other things, reduce taxes owed. It only becomes a problem if the business has shareholders who are not participating in the scheme to shift money to the land company.
It's not breaking fiduciary duty to the company if the company is wholly owned and in the interest of the owner. Or the transaction is in the interest of all the owners. It comes under transfer mispricing (transfer pricing manipulation) where transactions are not at arms length which it would not be if the same owner wholly owned both. It's not a highly policed area so it's legal insofar as people do usually get away with it. I think there will be crackdowns on it eventually, courts are more apt to pierce the corporate veil for solo-owned companies.
I think there are many changes coming down the pipeline as governments start running out of money. Capital gains tax normalization, capital gains tax treated as income every year instead of at a 'event' when you sell. An effective wealth tax by taxing a percentage of property value. Once those are in place I think they'll crack down on the creative use of corporations to minimize tax.
Not exactly unscrupulous if he wasn't charging insane rents to himself. His business would have to pay rent or mortgage for office space in any case. And the income his other business would get from the rent is taxable as well. At a certain point, he either has to break a law in an egregious manner and hope he does not get caught, or he has to pay taxes. That's the system we put in place when we start setting up income and corporate taxes to prop up a massive federal government.
Not for the same motivations, but a lot of legal cannabis businesses do (or did) something nearly similar to get around not being able to use the banking system:
Buy the building or even lease it with a sublet clause using a separate entity, and then lease/sublease the space to the cannabis business with the lease fee being, for example, "90% of gross revenue". I'm not sure on the details of how operating funds were pushed back in.
Society only functions so long as most people don't know these 'exploits'. Short of a rather intrusive totalitarian state I'm not sure how it would be possible to effectively police against such exploits. What's new is sharing information on exploits is much easier than it used to be and people feel less moral aversion to using them.
"AI's capacity to optimize networking and capital allocation could exacerbate existing inequalities, potentially marginalizing human involvement in economic systems. As AI-driven efficiencies increase, there's a risk that traditional roles and benefits for humans could diminish, necessitating careful consideration of policies to ensure equitable outcomes in an increasingly automated world. Addressing these challenges will require proactive measures to safeguard human welfare while harnessing AI's potential for societal benefit." --AI
The AI is not wrong. The issue is expecting competent, proactive safeguards from a group of people whose only motive is to secure every last penny and every last inch of power that they can. I simply don't see it happening; greed will be the undoing of greed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/QuittingZyn/