Yeah, only that Samatha (second article) is not a robot. It's a completely immobile sex doll with a couple of touch sensors. And it's a private project a "spanish dude" built, so absolutely not a product of any kind. The Real Doll app (and yes, it's really only a phone app at this point) comes slightly closer when coupled with the animated doll head, but that is far from being a product yet, too. McMullen will only sell the app as a doll accessory, any kind of animated features are far off in the future of his roadmap. Both are currently as much of a robot as Siri and Alexa are robots.

Sex robots do not exist, and likely will not exist for quite some time. Child sex robots are a hypothetical niche in a field that is entirely hypothetical at this point. This guy is trying to stir up a hypothetical moral panic about a hypothetical niche in a hypothetical genre that does not exist. The whole debate is as far removed from reality as it could possibly be. It's science-fiction at best, purely made up bullshit at worst. Don't these guys have anything else to do? Makes you wonder what the real agenda is.

That's like asking "Humans don't need wheels for walking, so why do cars need them for driving?" It's a different medium that uses different forms of expression.

Then how can licenses like the GPL work?

The rift has OLED screens that will suffer from burn-in if you leave them on with a static image being shown. It is literally a screen saver, and has nothing to do with restricting the user.

You're living in Europe, right? In the USA, a different kind of capitalism rules, and there are quite a few dystopian scenarios that I can come up with, if that kind of monitoring is not strictly regulated by privacy laws. On a company wide level, the aggregate health level becomes another key performance indicator. Your employed can and will analyze just how sick their workforce can be before productivity drops. Workload can now be increased and work conditions / safety standards lowered until that sweet spot is reached where profit is maximized. On an individual level, your biodata can not only show if you're sick, it can also calculate the risk of you becoming sick, or maybe even predict it. That is very convenient. If your employer knows you're going go drop out of work in two weeks, the human resources department has enough time to hire a replacement for you, and fire you just in time your absence might cause them a loss in productivity. On top of that, your health data will likely not be collected by your employer, but by some kind of third party. And not only will they closely cooperate with anyone else with who is interested in putting a score on your health (foremost your insurances), but also future employers. Which will of course mean, that this will primarily hit poor workers, who can't afford the best healthcare. And I could go on like that. Maybe I should write a novel :) Worst case:

... is monetization. They can sell more channel licenses, encrypt their radio streams, and sell paid subscriptions. This is the beginning of the end of free radio.

A lot of medication takes up to three weeks to show any effect, and sudden changes in dosage can wreak havoc on your neurochemistry, and possibly make things much, much worse. Also, in case of clinical depression for example, you want to prevent the next episode. When it's already there (and that come very quickly), and you're already standing on the bridge ready to jump, so to speak, it's unlikely you're going to be motivated to take your medicine. There's a joke that goes, "There's that new book "The power of positive thinking". I didn't buy it, because what would that be good for.". That sounds funny, but captures a depressive mindset rather well.

Could A 'Smart Firewall' Protect IoT Devices? No. "Smart" firewalls are in fact the problem. Getting rid of them, and using regular non-smart firewalls that only allow incoming connections when you explicitly and manually configured them to do so can protect your IoT devices.