This argument works just as well for exponential decay: it's "always the wrong model" because no decay lasts forever, eventually you'll run out of atoms in your radioactive sample (or whatever else you're modeling), and so some other curve that intercepts the y-axis in finite time is a better model because it gets the "basic shape" right and doesn't make "an extremely obvious mistake when modeling reality."

I think it undersells the hard work of the moderators behind the scenes to think that merely setting up the karma system reinforces the good worldview. See the Well-Kept Gardens post for the official stance of why keeping out unproductive distractions that disrupt the community is necessary.

banning lab meat is completely rational for the meat-eater because if progress continues then animal meat will probably be banned before the quality/price of lab meat is superior

Vox has a post about this a little while ago, and presented what might be the best counterargument (emphasis mine): link

… But the notion that lab-grown meat could eventually lead to bans on factory-farmed animal products is less unhinged.

After all, progressives in some states and cities have banned plastic straws, despite the objective inferiority of paper ones. And the moral case for infinitesimally reducing plastic production isn’t anywhere near as strong as that for ending the mass torture of animals. So, you might reason, why wouldn’t the left forbid real hamburgers the second that a petri dish produces a pale facsimile of a quarter-pounder?

While not entirely groundless, this fear is nevertheless misguided.

Plastic straws are not as integral to American life as tasty meats. As noted above, roughly 95 percent of Americans eat meat. No municipal, state or federal government could ever end access to high-quality hot dogs, ribs, or chicken fingers and survive the next election.

(I think the argument is shit, but when the premise one is trying to defend is patently false, this might well be best one can do.)

James Madison's Federalist #10 is a classic essay about this. He discusses the dangers of faction, "a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community," and how one might mitigate them.

the word "bodhi" has a fairly straightforward translation: it simply means "awakening" or "to wake up."

I think this is misleading: it isn't used in the everyday sense of "if you don't wake up, you'll be late for school," (that'd be something like "Jagriti") and is instead only used in the spiritual and philosophical sense. 

contacting authorities if the user does something that Claude considers illegal,

It was my understanding that Anthropic presented that as a desired feature in keeping with their vision for how Claude should work, at least when read in the context of the rest of their marketing, instead of as a common flaw that they tried but were unable to fix.

It may be true that all cars sometimes fail to start, but if a car company advertised theirs as not starting if you're parked at a meter that's run out to ensure you get ticketed (very alignment, many safety), it's reasonable to vilify them in particular.

This is a good parable about sports betting.

Most modern English speakers use "why" to mean both "what was the cause," and "to what end."  

In a modern teen drama, if Juliet said "Romeo, let us run away together and change our names. We can be Marco and Bianca, and be happy, just you and I," would you be confused that they weren't changing their last names?