If I buy a book, I pay the same price regardless of whether I read it once, five, or even zero times. If you can coerce the bot to regurgitate excerpts verbatim, then, since the bot has no license, every regurgitation would count as a separate count of infringement.

In your case, if you place the meat/cheese combo, it will weight too much (you scanned only the cheese).

He could scan only the item that costs less per pound/kilogram effectively getting a discount on the other.

Calling someone also screams "stop whatever your doing, the trivial matter i'm calling about is more important than whatever you're already doing".

I also feel that way about many text messages that should have been e-mails instead. Text messages can be either urgent (not life-threatening urgent, but still important) or not. Since I don't know which it is, I always have to look. Whereas if I get the e-mail notification sound, I know it's very likely not urgent and can ignore it until later.

You can drink a milkshake through a straw.

It depends where you are. In the US, when I order a "shake" (which is invariably short for "milkshake"), I get back something that I can barely drink with a straw. When I visited Australia and ordered a chocolate milkshake, I got basically chocolate milk. I later learned that if I wanted a US-style shake, I had to order a "thick shake" explicitly.

Itâ(TM)s the same reason people run marathons or climb mountains. Doing a complex difficult project trains us to be better.

While true, it doesn't cost billions of dollars of taxpayer money either to run marathons or climb mountains.

I've seen the studies...

So cite one. Just one.

If you'd like to change my mind with your own citation, fire away.

You know fully well one can't prove a negative. The burden of proof isn't on me anyway.

... young kids are being exposed to the most extreme porn out there.

[citation needed]

But I think the negative impact of porn on very young kids is really becoming apparent now.

What you think is irrelevant. It's what there's actual evidence for that matters. Meanwhile, there is actual evidence that social media (not even porn) is harmful. Yet you're doing nothing about that.

I think these other approaches are workable because they are expressly not technical, and give the industry plenty of room to come up with a viable solution.

Just because you really, really want a solution doesn't obligate the universe to make one technically feasible. Either you age-verify EVERYONE or you don't. But then you have the problem of, how, exactly, you age-verify everyone. Driver's license? Credit card? But then you have the problem of having large databases of EVERYONE (you, included) about what sites you visit. A surveillance state. There is no magic solution out there just waiting to be thought up by tech companies.

It's much easier for parents to block VPNs than a wide open internet.

Although PornHub chose simply to block access, what if they instead just told those states to go pound sand? If they have no physical presence in those states, then those states' laws don't apply to them. Then the kids wouldn't even need a VPN.

Do you think it's ok that an 8 year old has wide open access to these sites?

Nice straw man, there. It's apparently perfectly OK for kids to see gun violence, but heaven forbid they see a titty.

You're just pandering to your religious zealot base to score points for "doing something" for re-election.

I'm not a huge fan of it, but it's probably the only way get companies to work on a solution to stop (read: make it more difficult) for kids 8,9,10 etc from getting unfettered access to these adult materials.

Kids have had access to porn via the internet for decades. So on the one hand, it obviously hasn't been a high priority since you're only now getting around to it. And yet those then kids haven't become hoards of sex addicted adults now.

On the other hand, which part of VPN don't you understand? So I guess slightly fettered access is OK then. Haven't you got more important things to work on? Jobs? Inflation? The economy? Housing?

A car engine doesn't require perfectly spherical, super-cooled capsules to be the fuel. Tokamak reactors likely stand a much better chance of being commercially viable.

If a savant memorized all of the NYT and could reproduce articles would that be a copyright violation?

Yes. It's no different from you transcribing all of the NYT. The fact that the savant could read the entire corpus before writing anything down versus you reading a few words, writing those, reading the next few words, writing those, and so on, is irrelevant. Hence whether the infringer is a savant with a photographic memory or not is also irrelevant. Copyright is about the copy. How you made the copy is irrelevant.

What if they stood on the corner and offered to recite articles for $5 each?

That would also be a copyright violation. Again, the fact that they're a savant is irrelevant. It's no different that you reading and speaking one word at a time. And the entire reading aloud of an article would be an adaptation of the original copyrighted work. You need the copyright holder's permission to make adaptations. You can't publicly perform a play that's an adaptation of, say, a Marvel movie without Marvel's permission.

If you ever watched "Genesis of the Daleks" where Davros was introduced, the rest of his race, the Kaleds, were portrayed by white guys. (But this was the 1970s.) While I think their rationale for not using disabled evil characters is dumb, it makes sense that he'd revert to being a white guy since that's what he would have been before his disfigurement. Additionally in "The Magician's Aprentice," the Doctor goes sufficiently back in time on Skaro and encounters Davros as an ordinary looking white boy.

Davies gets credit for resurrecting the series. His writing is OK at best, but Steven Moffat (writer of Blink, the Girl in the Fireplace, A Christmas Carol, among others) is a MUCH better writer and was a better show runner. He really knows how to write timey wimey stories that are brilliant.

You're mixing schemes. NFTs make use of the Greater Fool Theory which has nothing to do with pyramid schemes.

Musk never started a Hyperloop company because he was never serious about it because he likely knew it was impractical. The only reason he popularized the Hyperloop concept was because he hates the California High Speed Rail project and wanted to try to slow it down or get it cancelled because he wants to keep people driving Teslas using the Supercharger network along I-5. It's in his official biography. Fortunately, sanity prevailed, at least for CA HSR.

So hatred for a billionaire meddling in state transportation issues because he personally doesn't like HSR because he wants people to drive his cars is justifiable.