So this isn't at all what you asked for, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway: Ubiquiti. You'll pay more and they're all PoE rather than wireless, but if you spend the money and run the wires (hey, you have to run a wire for power anyway, might as well use it for data, too) you won't regret the results.

Actually he tried and partly failed because it was only partly legal.

That might not stop him from trying, and unless Congress or the courts rein him in, it won't stop him from doing it. As I pointed out above, in this case it's unclear that anyone would have standing to sue (not taxpayers; it wouldn't be tax money -- maybe nVidia or China, but they like the deal), so stopping him would probably require Congress to act. And what are the odds that the Republican Congress would grow a spine?

"Not be possible" is too strong.

It's clearly possible unless Congress or the courts prevent it, even though it is clearly illegal. But Trump is doing lots of things that are clearly illegal, which is why the courts keep issuing injunctions to stop him (and then SCOTUS keeps staying the injunctions to let him go ahead and do it anyway, at least for a while). In a sane world, the fact that an action is illegal would be a stronger constraint because the president would have to be concerned that Congress would impeach and convict him, and he would have to be concerned about potential criminal liability. In the world that exists, the GOP leadership in Congress refuses to do their job to rein in the executive, and SCOTUS has declared the president above the law so there are few practical limitations on his power.

So far, the only thing that seems to really make Trump back off is when the stock market crashes.

Nevertheless, a slush fund of several billion dollars per year that the president is truly able to spend with complete discretion would be a significant additional increase in power because it's not clear that anyone would have standing to sue, so courts could not intervene regardless of constitutionality. Congress would be able to intervene, of course, but, again, the GOP-led Congress has almost completely abdicated. I had to add "almost" only because they actually did stand up to him on the Epstein files (sort of; the bill left Pam Bondi with near-total freedom to withhold anything she wants, not legally, but practically).

No, Trump is more secretive than most other presidents. You're confusing "unfiltered and disorganized" with "transparent". I do have to grant that he's incredibly transparent about his corruption. Well, maybe. He has been transparently corrupt in lots of ways, but it still seems likely that there's more corruption which he's keeping hidden.

Everything is gambling now.

Meanwhile, the most preventable of diseases are becoming commonplace.

Where did you read that? If it's true it would be momentous. A totally discretionary fund of $2-6B per year (based on nVidia's projections of selling $2-5B per quarter to China) would give the president enormous unchecked power.

I've spend some time searching and haven't found anything to substantiate this claim. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to see where you got the idea from.

They are planning on building an AI datacenter in an industrial park at the edge of my small rural town. This industrial park already has some massive industry in it - like one of the largest Gatorade bottling plants in the USA.

On Facebook I started seeing a lot of posts in our local county gossip group casting pure FUD on the datacenter. Namely that it would pollute the water with heavy metals, and most of all, everyone would be "footing the electric bill" for this plant. With the electric bill the claim is that if infrastructure has to be improved, that cost is passed on to everyone. I've been trying to find information to combat this misinformation but it has been difficult.

In our case, the power company is AEP, which has over 5 million customers. There is a new 20 MW solar far less than a mile away from this location, and another 75 MW solar farm being built out in the county. We also have two hydroelectric dams on the edge of the county. This industrial park was built to attract huge industry and has massive power feeds, two interstates within a couple miles, and even rail service. So I doubt it needs anything at all, but even if it did, AEP is such a huge company that infrastructure costs would surely be absorbed across their entire customer base?

Looking at the initial posts seeding FUD, I noted that the people weren't even in our state, let alone our county.

Now there's a bunch of locals all riled up over this because they just believe anything they see online, and the next County Board of Supervisors meeting is going to be quite heated. Although I think this is already a done-deal.

>"MY prediction is that I will never buy a pair of these from anyone."

Me neither.

>"They are just another over priced 3D TV type product as far as I am concerned."

I love 3D TV. And it wasn't over-priced; maybe added 5% to the cost of my TV choice at the time? Totally different thing than being a Glasshole.

>"Seems like everyone wears contacts, gets lasik, or something?"

None of those work (or work well) for loss of near vision, which will happen to all of us. And many of us don't want to have to put on and take off reading glasses 1,000 times a day so we get bifocals or progressive lenses and just wear them all day.

Don't believe me? Get back to me when you are 40 or 50... :)

>"in many EU countries, there VERY MUCH is an expectation of privacy in public. Set up a doorbell camera in Germany that films anything but your own front yard, and enjoy the lawsuits from your neighbors. Store the footage more than 72 hours? More legal problems. It's great ... they take personal freedom seriously. don't just pay lip service to it."

Um, that isn't taking personal freedom seriously. That is taking personal PRIVACY IN PUBLIC seriously. Often freedom and privacy are linked. But in your example, they are taking away individuals' freedom to record what they see while in public. Right?

Exactly how does this equate to when you are in a park and want to photo or video your kids? You have to somehow frame everything so no other human is ever visible? How about if you are at a party? You have to get permission slips from everyone? What about places where it is essentially impossible to de-frame other people, like a concert, or a theme-park? How will a dash-cam fit into this paradigm?

What we most need privacy protection from are systems that tie multiple cameras together into networks that spy on us while "in public". I am not as concerned about individual people or home security cameras.

Although- putting on "glasses" that record people without others knowing, especially people being actively interacted with, is EXTREMELY RUDE. It breaks all social norms and contracts. And it is not at all the same as people occasionally pulling out a camera/phone to take a photo or video.

There is a reason people coined the term "Glasshole". https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...

This is the sound of the other shoe dropping.

>"If your argument is not able to stand by its own, without your name, your reputation or people checking your post history, it is no good argument."

One can have a reasonable argument, but also be completely unreasonable, socially. I agree that AC postings *can* have value. Yours is a perfect example. You are clear, respectful, and add to the conversation. The problem is that it often is just a bunch of nastiness or trolling. And because so many abuse it, people will filter it all out, or make negative assumptions about the poster's information or intent.

I am probably an outlier. Whether I post somewhere will full ID, with a pseudonym, or completely anonymously, I always write exactly the same way. With the same tone, respect, and diligence. I don't resort to personal attacks or inflammatory tone, I try to put myself in other's shoes and see multiple perspectives, and try to assume the poster I am responding to is acting in food faith (unless he or she proves otherwise in that posting). It seems this is far from "normal", though, which is a shame.

>"If you don't want to put your name to what you say then you're not worth giving a shit about. The AC thing has run it's course. There's no point in having it anymore. All it does is allow fuckwits to unleash their most fuckwitttest version of themselves."

I don't even think it needs to be your "name". (Note, you don't use your name.... I actually do, but that was my choice). At least requiring a login so there is some "handle" to show previous activity and positions is useful. And there is still a reputation to protect, even if it is not a person's actual name/identity. So I agree with you on the "AC" stuff on Slashdot. It is abused as a way to just attack positions or people without any reference.

I say this but am FIERCELY against platforms requiring verified "ID" in order to post. Even if they allow a public-facing alias. For me, that is a bright red line. And we are already crossing that line very quickly in this backwards methodology of "saving the children" when the real problem are having access to unrestricted devices, not the platforms, themselves.

>professors "struggle to accommodate the many students with an official disability designation,"

Do they also get to bring their "emotional support animals" to the test?

>"At Brown and Harvard, more than 20 percent of undergraduates are registered as disabled. At Amherst, that figure is 34 percent."

Why does that not surprise me.

>"But I would say that insurance should pay if the scan turns up anything requiring medical attention - early detection saves money."

I would say it is very unlikely any insurance will retroactively pay for a non-medically-indicated (non-physician-ordered and with justification) scan. Even if it picks up something that is a valid concern. However, they should cover further investigation/treatment of something discovered. Including further scans to clarify and follow-up scans.