HopFlop

Well, that would just shift the problem: Now, instead of wealthy people being less deterred, it's the people with a bunch of free time that are less deterred (college kids screwing around, people with no job)...

Also, it doesnt benefit the society any more that the fine's money would (assumuning the community service would be equivalent to the current monetary value). (There are also other problems like verifying the work is actually done and also small fines, like, am I supposed to pick up trash from the sidewalk for 2 minutes for jaywalking?)

1. Lets focus on non-necessity acts here (e. g. traffic violations).

2. Deterring people is not the only goal, it also needs to be fair/appropriate. And this is where, IMO, the income-adjusted fines fail.

Fines should be adjusted depending on the offense commited, possibly also taking into account the intentions. Personal wealth is not a factor that seems reasonable to me to take into account regarding the fairness.

Essentially, I believe that everybody should be treated equally before the law. Nobody should be treated better or worse (or have a better or worse punishment) just because of their social status. That's why I believe that fixed fines are fair and the suggested varying punishments are not. I do recognize that they may deter wealthier people less.

Okay but then what about those poor people mentioned above that need to steal for necessities. Wouldn't we want to deter them the most (as they are the most likely to commit the act)?

It doesnt seem logical to me to say that we should increase the fines to deter (wealthy) people more and at the same time say that we should lower the fines so (poor) people that are currently deterred can afford to break the law (?)...

You have a point but what about stuff like traffic violations? Nobody NEEDS to commit one, so should these fines be the same for everyone?

Also, following your example, person A making 75k/year and person B making 150k/year both have no necessitiy to steal groceries. Yet, if the fine was income-dependent, person B would have to pay way more.

Also, this would mean people with no money or income could do what they want without any consequences.

Im also failing to understand why successful people should supposedly be charged more. It doesnt make a difference if the person who committed the crime has more or less money, so they should be charged according to the crime, not what they have.

"The chicken" by Bo Burnham. Don't be fooled by that title.

Thats 8 square-pounds.

They dont use reason to question their training data. How a LLM works is that basically, you have this huge "math function" (the neural network) with billions of parameters and you randomly adjust the factors inside it until you get a function that gives you the desired output for every prompt that you give it. (It's not completely random but this is basically it).

Therefore, an LLM is programmed in a way so that it best matches the majority of its training data. I also cant wrap my head around it being able to reason.

Using an IDE definety IS programming.

No need to align them like that. Just place them one behind the other and cut off one third on the side (with a single stroke).

I have never seen non-tilting windows. At least in Germany, pretty much every house has these. These windows were invented around 1950 after all...

Its not like the few mosquitoes we have would be smart enough to enter my room through the sides of a lightly tilted window.