He clearly wasn't that good, or he wouldn't have been caught. These amateurs don't seem to understand that they way to do this is to make the system so complex and reliant on you doing certain undocumented actions, that if they fire you it will all collapse on its own. Then you can't be accused of causing damage, because you didn't, you just walked away as asked. It's not your fault that they didn't recognize how essential your services were, or pay you to do a proper rebuild and handover.

The rational response is to either not stalk users, or to have a small checkbox somewhere that lets them opt in to the privacy invasion.

Anyone else creeped out that I got modded down for the above post?

When I see things like "facial age verification", I have major concerns, whether we're talking about a site like Roblox (whatever that is — I don't know, and don't really care), social media, porn, or any other site. How are you going to do it without violating the privacy of every person who creates an account? And how are you going to verify that the person using the account is the person who created it without causing an even bigger privacy violation?

We do need some sort of age verification system, but we need it to be designed in a way that protects privacy. I have less than zero faith in any individual website to come up with such a system, and approximately zero faith in any individual government to do so. There really needs to be an international age verification working group that spends the next five years coming up with a system, then pressures everyone to implement it.

Doing it the other way around, with companies or governments shoveling bad, partial, or even dangerous solutions to the problem down everyone's throats, can only result in greater levels of push-back by the general public towards a proper scheme if someone ever creates it.

It's okay Matt Gaetz picked up where Epstein left off.

You think you have it tough, how are members of the Trump administration supposed to look for dates now?

It's the opposite. The rules are well written by people who understand the issues. It's the regulators and courts that have had problems understanding.

They did review and change the policy. Just too late to do any good. The point is that evidence-based medicine has to be treated as a starting point for diagnosis and treatment decisions, not a rigid decision tree.

Of course, none of that makes the CDC's new claims that "vaccines don't cause autism" isn't an evidence-based statement any less absurd. You can't ever realistically prove definitively that X cannot cause Y, because that would require knowing that there exists no combination of recognizable human genetics in which X would cause Y. Evidence-based medicine would mean assuming that X cannot cause Y until evidence exists to prove that it does or can, which has not happened.

What they're doing is rejecting evidence-based medicine based on a belief that the anecdotal information they have should be taken more seriously than the broad evidence to the contrary. This would be fine if that anecdotal information were based on actual brain scans prior to vaccination that showed that the vaccine triggered a change, but it isn't. Rather, involves mistaking correlation for causation, and a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, with a complete lack of any actual plausible explanation for how vaccines could cause autism beyond some vague hand-wavey pseudoscience.

And on top of that, we have a bunch of people who lack enough understanding of the scientific method and/or lack enough understanding of the subject to recognize when it is not being followed properly, and they are getting misled by charlatans with a political or personal agenda, presented in the form of pseudoscientific bulls**t papers that don't hold up to even modest scrutiny by someone with limited understanding of the subject or the scientific method, much less actual scientists in the field.

We also have a bunch of journals that publish papers outside their area of expertise, relying on outside experts that are in league with the papers' authors, and all sorts of other fun scientific fraud, which further contributes to this problem.

I'm not sure how to solve this problem, because it seems like a large percentage of the public simply lacks basic critical thinking skills and the ability to read over a paper and think, "Yes, but did you consider the following twelve common factors that could influence both the proposed cause and effect?" and realize that the paper is garbage. But a good starting point would be to pressure the news media across the political spectrum to hire actual science writers who UNDERSTAND SCIENCE to cover science-based stories.

Another good starting point would be to get more science-based shows on PBS that can talk about these issues and explain them to people and debunk bulls**t every week.

Pedophilia is not just about age or physical characteristics it's about exerting power over a helpless individual.

Once you're an adult in most countries you at least have some agency. But the reason Trump targets children is because they don't have that agency and he enjoys abusing that fact.

So the difference you're talking about might matter for the purposes of a psychiatrist treating Donald Trump for his particular form of psychopathy but from a practical standpoint he is very much a pedophile.

And he is effectively above the law so it's not like he's going to get treatment. He's just an unrepentant pedophile and a substantial number of the people here voted for him knowing that.

Are going to make it back over the Europe right? Also eventually we're going to need to invade your countries in order to loot them and fill our coffers because that's what failing empires do and our empire is very much on the skids.

Now would be a good time for the rest of the world to stage and intervention and maybe try to stop Russia from getting Trump a third term as president.

The problem is you're ruling class is hoping that if America falls they can't get their currency in as the de facto world currency which would put them in the running to become trillionaires.

In other news I'm using Google text to speech to write this out on my phone and it now recognizes the word trillionaire. A year ago it didn't it replaced it with billionaire and I had to edit the b to be a t...

At least what we most commonly refer to as autism. It's genetic.

There are also some factors in the womb that can cause symptoms we associate with autism specifically things like mild fetal alcohol syndrome. That isn't technically autism though and a actual doctor would know the difference.

The beauty of autism from a political standpoint is that the term is used so broadly in the public that you can create a lot of fear and confusion that is highly useful politically. And you can get parents to vote for things that hurt their kids while promising to help their kids.

Along with gender affirming healthcare it's one of the most effective things the right wing has to rob you of your money and your property right now.

Assuming our country and democracy somehow survives the next 3 years then eventually the current moral panics will run their course. Which makes me wonder what the next moral panic will be.

If you happen to know what that is and how the right wing will use it then you could probably make a hell of a lot of money getting out ahead of that. You can be the next Charlie Kirk or Tucker Carlson or Alex Jones...

It also be a monster but hey, you'd be a rich monster right?

Unfortunately, evidence-based medicine has become a code word for "treat everyone with the same illness identically even when the data doesn't support doing so. That's how I ended up fighting a c. diff. infection. I was hospitalized for a related condition, and the first day of antibiotics put me at no fever, but after a day, I got a fever again, and I asked if the antibiotic had changed, and they said no, but maybe the ER gave me something different. They checked, and determined that yes, I had been on a different antibiotic in the ER, but said that they should keep the current antibiotics, and used "evidence-based medicine" as the reason. I had my doubts.

They were wrong. And six months later, the general standards for treating the condition I came in with changed, and they now treat it with the antibiotic that the ER gave me instead of one of the two that the hospital put me on afterwards, precisely because the standard treatment had a tendency to make c. diff. take over.

Whoops.

So I'm all for evidence-based medicine as a starting point, but when you realize it isn't behaving normally, you should adjust accordingly. Otherwise, patients suffer enormously.

But in theory, I do agree with you that evidence-based medicine is better than evidence-free medicine based on gut feelings and assumptions that correlation means causation and other fallacious reasoning.

That's basically what Android is. The APIs can run on any base OS, and for a while Microsoft maintained a subsystem for Windows. CPU agnostic too.

Chinese machines are already making inroads where they aren't banned. You can get a lot of decent construction equipment from there too. That's the danger here, by the time Western companies get around to producing EV tractors with all the advantages they bring, the market will be saturated with mature and competitively priced products.

As for durability, some EVs have proven to be very fixable. Nissan Leafs are a good example. Relatively simple, not difficult to work on, drivetrain that is separate from everything else and highly maintainable. Again, the Deeres of the world are screwing themselves with all this DRM bullshit that stops people fixing their products.

When Google sells a 24-inch tablet, I'll care about Google being able to sell me a replacement that can do this. In the meantime, I want this feature on older, non-Google Android devices. :-)