ilinamorato

It's not really restraining them at the moment.

Indeed; it definitely would show some promise. At that point, you'd run into the problem of needing to continually update its weighting and models to account for evolving language, but that's probably not a completely unsolvable problem.

So maybe "never" is an exaggeration. As currently expressed, though, I think I can probably stand by my assertion.

Proven? I don't think so. I don't think there's a way to devise a formal proof around it. But there's a lot of evidence that, even if it's technically solvable, we're nowhere close.

We will never solve the Scunthorpe Problem.

This adage is also reversible.

Votes are anonymous. You can tell who voted, but not what they voted for. It's crucial for the fairness of elections that a vote cannot be definitively connected to the individual who cast it; if you could, you could coerce or retaliate.

And all of the things you mention are the trust OP is talking about. You were a trusted person in that situation. The process increases and validates trust.

who has been caught cheating on 66% of his wives

FTFY.

Harris gets to have her cake and eat it too, though; she can say she disagrees to give herself a little bit of distance from Joe in the eyes of the moderate right, and at the same time she gets the press bump on the moderate left from her boss saying it. Honestly, it's probably going to go well for her.

The problem is that they never hear about the stuff MAGA folks do. Fox doesn't report about it, but they blast Biden's gaffes from the rooftops, meaning more mainstream news orgs have to cover Biden's gaffes or risk looking like they're playing favorites. So the MAGAs never hear about the evil stuff Trump says unless they go looking for it--which they only do if they want to hear it from him anyway.

Both can be true: it is too expensive, and there's no money to be made. $840B wouldn't put a dent in the launch costs for the tens of thousands of rockets we'd need to put into space over the next several decades in order to just get rid of the Pacific Garbage Patch, to say nothing of the rest of the trash on this planet.

And actually, there's a third true thing: it wouldn't help much. Having it on Earth isn't the problem; it's having it in the oceans that's the problem. Partially because of the environmental impact, partially because of the biological impact, and partially because we don't have access to it to reuse it, so we have to keep making more. Once we had it out of the oceans, we could recycle it or even just sequester it away.

1. To get into the sun, we'd probably want to fuel the rockets in space using reaction material mined in space (from the moon or an asteroid). That would more or less eliminate the problem you're talking about, which is why I kind of skipped over that in my comment. But you're right; this is one of a million things that makes space travel hard and expensive.

2. We can get up to any speed with enough time and fuel. The trash rockets would just need to get into a solar orbit, and then burn retrograde for a fairly long while. Or if you add a gravity assist in, this is doable today; the Parker Solar Probe got to (and indeed beyond) that speed, for instance. It's easier and quicker when there aren't squishy people aboard (we don't tend to like acceleration much higher than 9.8m/s², for instance).

Oh, also: I don't think it's a stupid question. It's a fun question. It might not be a workable plan, but I love thinking about this stuff.