The right against self-incrimination isn't just about direct evidence for this alleged crime... it is also for other unspecified crimes. The defendent, and most rational people, do not want authorities going through their entire phone, retrieving bank passwords, late night sexts to lovers, photos taken and not yet deleted... all of which, by the way, become public record if entered in court, even if not used.

We don't have good controls over our data once the "authorities" get their hands on it. That is the problem.

If you had a twenty-foot pole, you wouldn't even consider sex change surgery.

1. The average American has zero accidents that trigger airbags in a year, or even in a decade... and yet all cars now have them.
2. The average American uses less than a third of their SmartPhone capability, but they continue buying more phone than they need.
3. The average American buys cars that do far more than they need.
4. About 1/3 of Americans (32%) personally own a gun, but clearly nowhere near that many use or need them.

The average American buys for what they want or what they fear, not what you think they need.

That's 13 years away. None of them will still be in office; it will negatively impact other politicians. If they meant it, they should ban ICE engines in 2023.

Of course, how well would that go over. It's safer to hurt people from the future; they can't hit back.

I understand your assumption, but years ago, around ten or so, a new CAD release melted my (mid/high-range) graphics card. It turned out to be a rare occurrence, only a few models of cards were affected, and not all of them, probably some combination of CPU, card and settings. But absolutely on stock unmodified equipment. Lightning sometimes strikes people who aren't holding lightning rods.

It's also misleading. Currently the CDC's stats show that ages 65 and over are only 15.7% of the population but over 73% of the deaths. People over age 50 are 93% of the deaths. And otherwise-healthy people are less than 10% of COVID hospitalizations. (Keep in mind few 80-year-olds qualify as "otherwise healthy.")

The numbers may not lie, but they're lying to you by only giving you some of the numbers.

Yeah, you know, we used to call that progress. During WWII, when women entered the workforce en masse, it was hoped and believed to be temporary. But the increase in purchasing power, helped by the increase of machines at home (e.g. laundry and dish washing machines, later food processors, microwave ovens, etc.) provided a multiplier that increased two things:

• Luxury - i.e. pretty quickly every home had a color TV
• Freedom - pretty quickly, women didn't need marriage.

But Utopia has always looked like not having to work. Well, except in the original poem, but nobody remembers that.

Once upon a time, "minimum wage" was meant to be a starter-wage. What teens earned prior to graduating high school. Now it must be a "living wage", with the result that the governmentally-set minimum wage, including days off and benefits, now exceeds the value-add of a typical starter-employee. And so now the unskilled, thanks to you, no longer have a ladder where they can provide some value while learning how to provide more. What the grotesquely immature call a "race to the bottom" isn't; by, instead of providing swimming lessons and giving workers a ladder, they've raised that water level so their feet can't touch the bottom and drowning them. It's you, not the businesses responding to the laws you created. Look in the mirror.

You're kinda hitting the hyperbole button hard-and-fast there. It's not that big a slope from dropping Section 230, which doesn't really seem like that bad an idea after 15 months of mob-enabled censorship, riots and thought-police, much of which winds up discredited in the light of day a few months later, too late for discourse.

The challenge is that those "services" already censor based on perceived acceptability of the statements, but only answer to themselves. Hong Kong is saying, Fine, take that a step further.

Of course, you could avoid hypocrisy entirely by suggesting that the services give up censorship entirely, thus actually earning the common-carrier label. An example? Email, which you bizarrely threw on the pile of burning books.

Sadly, you are the pot calling the kettle, well, you know. Because you aren't looking at the current consequences, only at what you like.

Amazon seems to have removed quite a few brands. I use a "Litter Genie" when scooping the cat boxes. The generic refills are not only far less expensive, but better, especially the 21' instead of 14' length, which makes a huge usability difference. Been buying them for at least five years. Love the Firik brand.

Discovered last week, they're not on Amazon anymore. None of them except the Litter Genie brand itself. But I was able to order direct from Firik, just slightly higher price than I used to pay from Amazon.

No idea what happened, but Amazon seems to be simplifying the product landscape while they still allow companies to miscategorized their products.

I can tell you haven't actually had to defend yourself in court. What happens on TV, and what you believe from a simple reading of the law, are not related to reality. (Pro tip: relationships in real life don't work like in the movies either. Nor do gun shots.)

In real life, you get one chance to defend yourself. You know what evidence the other side may bring up, but you'll be looking at mountains of it. And, if your lawyer is any good, you will present mountains to them. All before the actual trial.

And then... the trial. The first day is often spent just arguing over what evidence will be inadmissable. You'd be stunned how much you think is clear evidence, that you won't be allowed to present because you didn't (for example) have a certifying authority who was also made available for examination. And they don't have to raise that objection before trial day, even though they've had the evidence for perhaps a month. Nope, your valid evidence is kicked out because of some technicality that isn't documented anywhere.

Your hope, at that point, is you exclude or destroy their evidence... or that you get yours re-introduced on appeal. Which is important because you don't really get to appeal based on evidence you failed to submit before, again regardless of TV. But you can appeal based on a claim that evidence was improperly excluded.

So leave your armchair lawyering about "burden of proof" behind. The burden of proof is absolutely on the accused. The prosecution plays the game every day, they know the rules and the tricks, and you don't.

I don't think that's more accurate at all. First, it isn't what has been widely reported, but even if the case (and I haven't seen that it is), you don't threaten your employer. And certainly not with resignation.

In your mind, how did that go? "If you don't do xxx, yyy, and zzz, I {am outta here | will consider the possibility of thinking about contemplating whether I should consider leaving}? " Do you see how idiotic your perspective, that it was the latter, sounds? It just doesn't happen.

So much of this started with Timnit Gebru (the female black co-lead of the "ethical AI team") quitting and making a bunch of demands before she would come back.

Read that again. She wasn't immediately fired; she quit (after violating a handful of company policies), told them what they'd have to do for her to return, and they merely accepted her resignation instead.

"Ethical"? I'm not claiming Google is ethical, but is lying so that you can play the victim ethical?

This can't really be considered racism or sexism, despite Timnit's self-serving claims about lack of diversity; she was replaced by Marian Croak, another black woman.

So... Stark turned it down. Which means what? Not much, it turns out. He was already funded. The money wouldn't have made him rich; it just would have added more to an already-okay budget.

It's melodramatic, but Stark isn't giving anything up and, despite not being on Google's side generally, I don't see that it did anything wrong really.

It really isn't like that at all. That mall you set foot in, it cannot even allow racist behavior. If you trip and fall there, you can sue it for liability. But Facebook, while private (as you say), has S.230 protections, closer to being a public beach. Except it's a public beach that can be racist.

Right now, they have the best of both worlds; they can arbitrarily censor, and simultaneously claim immunity for posts that would otherwise violate the law. The trouble is that they are moderating out what they disagree with, under S.230, while not moderating out violations. Definitely not a shopping mall.

The initial challenge with S.230 was that it provides "common carrier" status to providers - e.g. discussion boards, Facebook, Twitter - that then act in a biased way, refuting the "common" part of "common carrier.". They often do this in the name of "decency" or "false/fake news", but these are not generally legal distinctions. (Meaning they don't have a legal definition, not that claiming them is unlawful.)

But, upon realizing that censorship can work, the other side launched a series of crusades to render ever more words and ideas forbidden. And to rail against any "fake news" they don't like, regardless of the science. (Science is suspect too, dontchaknow.) A year after certain ideas were branded fake about, e.g., a major virus, we see that those "fake" ideas were in fact the real ones... but nobody is going after the initial censors on sites such as Facebook and Nextdoor.

So, roughly from the right, if the carrier refuses to be common, why should they have common carrier protections?

And, roughly from the left, if they're allowed and even expected to moderate out offensive content, and yet refuse to, why shouldn't we hold them accountable? After all, they are offending us!

I don't see a modification or fine-tuning that will work. S.230 has to go.

So... if I say you can only donate to your favored charity if you agree to donate 75% of all your income to charities, am I allowing you to donate to your favorite charity? You could (six months ago) travel to Hawaii as long as you subjected yourself to a two-week self-paid in-state quarantine; were you still allowed to go to Hawaii? What if it was six months?

This is essentially what the law says, You can do what you want, if you accept these unsurvivable conditions at the time..

AT&T is right. Applying draconian conditions are the same as saying "no."