It's long past time we had a real debate about the law, too. Just because something has been the law for a long time, that doesn't necessarily mean it should remain the law as times change. Clearly there is a difference between the implications of casually observing someone as you pass them in a public street, when you probably forget them again a moment later, and the implications of recording someone with a device that will upload the footage to a system run by a global corporation where it can be permanently stored, shared with other parties, analysed including through image and voice recognition that can potentially identify anyone in the footage, where they were, what they were doing, who they were doing it with, and maybe what they were saying and what they had with them, and then combined with other data sources using any or all of those criteria as search keys in order to build a database at the scale of the entire global population over their entire lifetimes to be used by parties unknown for purposes unknown, all without the consent or maybe even the knowledge of the observed people who might be affected as a result.

I don't claim to know a good answer to the question of what we should allow. Privacy is a serious and deep moral issue with far-reaching implications and it needs more than some random guy on Slashdot posting a comment to explore it properly. But I don't think the answer is to say anything goes anywhere in public either just because it's what the law currently says (laws should evolve to follow moral standards, not the other way around) or because someone likes being able to do that to other people and claims their freedoms would be infringed if they couldn't record whatever they wanted and then do whatever they wanted with the footage. With freedom comes responsibility, including the responsibility to respect the rights and freedoms of others, which some might feel should include more of a right to privacy than the law in some places currently protects.

That all said, people who think it's cool to film other human beings in clear distress or possibly even at the end of their lives just for kicks deserve to spend a long time in a special circle of hell. Losing a friend or family member who was, for example, killed in a car crash is bad enough. Having to relive their final moments over and over because people keep "helpfully" posting the footage they recorded as they drove past is worse. If you're not going to help, just be on your way and let those who are trying to protect a victim or treat a patient get on with it.

Bad cooling was a huge problem for PCs as well. There was not only the cheap fans that quickly wore out, but also people who kept the computer in a drawer, or on the floor where it acted as a stationary roomba vacuuming up all the dust within reach.

Really shitty. I'm arrogant so I do want to point out the obvious: Trump won the primaries and became the candidate for the Republican team because the Republican party is shitty.

Both parties are really shitty.

When challenged it will spew some words representing the form of a counter-argument, prefaced with an apologetic tone. Probably with even lower accuracy than the initial slop.

When you get your accounting from "IIRC" you end up somehow, miraculously, being stupider than that stupidity box people stare at.

(The US Government's entire budget across all IT and AI research for 2025 was $11B)

Considering your username I'd have expected better, except that this is slashdot so expectations are pegged pretty low.

People get tricked and become really fanatical for a few months, and then they slowly mention it less, and then a couple years later they avoid the subject altogether.

They're never wrong about any of it, though... they won't even admit that they changed their mind.

So you were tricked by the word "hallucinate," and don't have the educational background to understand the subject matter.

The links are called Slashvertisements. The "summary" is the first paragraph from the link.