If the librarians don't want a book in the library it's never going to be there in the first place for anyone to try to ban it. So this makes it a politically skewed list--any right-wing book that leftists would want to ban probably won't be in the library in the first place. so no need to ban it.

Also note the careful wording "targeted for bans", which is to say not banned.

They didn't claim that the chatbot is a person. They claimed that they weren't responsible for what their agents say. The judge then inferred that that meant they were calling the chatbot a person.

It's a fair inference under the circumstances, but they didn't actually say it outright.

Because the political requirements for the Oscars are ones which we're supposed to approve of, while the political requirements for the Hugos by China are ones which we're allowed to disapprove of. (This is different from the political requirements for Hugos in previous years based on social justice, which we're also supposed to approve of.)

By that reasoning, the activists could name a presidential candidate, claim that only that candidate's policies keep us from being dead, or even just that only that candidate will get us a healthy economy. The company's priority would then have to be electing the presidential candidate.

Short-term, immediate, effects on the company's profit are much harder to fudge than "do this policy or we're dead" or "do this policy or the economy's toast". Especially when you're trying to compare the costs of different policies.

I was aware that Japan tends to do this and there wasn't as much of it as I expected, but it's still there in the movie.

It's like having a movie about a Confederate soldier suffering after the South lost the Civil War, which doesn't mention slavery or black people at all. You can say that your movie is about one of the soldiers who didn't keep any slaves himself and was just suffering because of the actions of people he had nothing to do with. In a way this could be true.

If you were to make this movie, it would still be raked over the coals, because slavery is such an important aspect of the Civil War that if you just leave it out, you're presenting a very skewed perspective, regardless of whether the individual soldier kept any slaves. World War II was an aggressive war which in the Pacific was started by the Japanese, and they did a lot of bad things quite aside from just invading. The movie pretends that the war was "the Japanese suffered", but not "the Japanese caused suffering".

The law doesn't say that a handicap-only parking spot is illegal. It does say that a women-only job fair is illegal.

Somehow I don't think "wants a job" counts as "feels like they need to be disruptive".

But remember:

Which is another way of saying "they had every right". (What do you think a "federal nondiscrimination protection" is other than a right?)

What she did was hope that she could discriminate under the table by implying it was women-only when she knows very well that being women-only isn't permitted. Then she got upset when she wasn't able to discriminate in a way she was not permitted to do anyway.

What next, a Slashdot headline "black people overrun a whites-only job fair"?

That doesn't make it legal.

Another reason that things like clothing get destroyed instead of given away is that if you give them away, that makes it possible to bribe the person in charge so that they suddenly decide that some product "has to be thrown out" and they'll give it to you. If things that the company doesn't want get destroyed, there's no incentive to bribe someone to destroy extra stuff.

Discriminating on the basis of income when blacks have less income would lead to a disparate impact lawsuit, so no, they couldn't.

That sounds like accounts with purchases, unless it's only accounts with free games.

Even if the uses of the money are restricted, giving everyone $21000 for education will just mean that colleges will raise their prices by an average of $21000 to capture the consumer surplus.

If you don't have a good excuse, you're wrong. But if the guy you're complaining about doesn't have a good excuse, you're right. And that's what happened here. The guy complaining about libel isn't the one who used ChatGPT. He's complaining that someone else did.

If the solar panels actually produced enough energy to cover the cost, people would have put them in voluntarily because they'd at least be free, and unless the energy *just exactly* covered cost, they'd produce income. This hasn't happened.