No. Not easily, anyway. And that has the same effect as the feature I described. Lower DPI = less screen real estate, not just larger system fonts.

Maybe you want fine-grained control over all your fonts, which could be tricky. But if all you want is larger text, the Displays control panel is your friend. There's even an icon labeled that.

It honestly never even occurred to me that you could get severance pay from a job like the Geek Squad.

That's probably a long way off, too. Right now, robotaxis are only allowed on a limited range of public roads, which doesn't include highways (and by extension, bridges and tunnels). So while they might be useful to get you from your home in a city neighborhood to downtown, but not much more than that.

(Also, I doubt anybody's really going to pay for robotaxis for a daily commute. Most people buy cars or take the train for that.)

"Going Sleeper"? I don't get it. If you were laid off, why wouldn't you say so? You're under no obligation to a retailer you no longer work for, least of all to use some kind of coded language.

It's important to note that Weird Al seeks the approval of the artists he is parodying. Technically it's not likely in many cases he has to, since US copyright law generally protects parody, but he's a good faith actor who understands not everyone is going to want to be parodied. Still, the fact that he does seek permission gives him an extra layer of protection.

Yes, training AI on Nazis at Truth Social will be much more effective.

Oh, and there's no such warning. When you get into the backseat of a robotaxi, it won't even start moving until everybody is wearing their seatbelts. I hardly see any passenger leaping into the front seat and grabbing the controls in a traffic incident.

Nah. I've rode a couple of robotaxis around the city, and while the ride is nice, it's clear we're nowhere near "get in a car and go to sleep." For one thing, the vehicles aren't even allowed on highways yet. And they require months of training on any particular urban area before they can perform reliably. I don't think there's been any training in rural or even suburban environments, which have different challenges. What you say may eventually be possible, but we're still a long way off.

According to COPPA, which has been federal law for 10 years

Any legal challenged are almost certainly going to be a waste of money given this law is hardly any different in reach or impact than the existing federal law. Effectively all social media sites are already required to meet the same consent requirements. The only difference will be that they will check for a birthday a couple years less recent than they were already doing.

This small government philosophy sure does call for an awfully big government. Maybe they can get some Evangelicals to do the censorship for free.

I imagine it's the way in which you express your opinions that was viewed as problematic. But you seemed to make a concerted effort, as part of what you deemed a protest, to erase the actual posts.

I'm getting a clear sense of why you were given the boot.

I'm telling once you abandon the principle of retributivism, then anything can become a capital crime. It just simply becomes a system of revenge, and worse, where revenge is defined as whatever outrages the mob the most.

Apart from anything else, what happens if it turns out they're innocent? At least if someone is in prison, there's release and reparations from wrongful prosecution, conviction and imprisonment. If you kill someone and then find out later you got the wrong guy, not much you can do.

Beyond that there's a rather ancient legal principle that the punishment should fit the crime. While I want every child rapist severely punished, the fact is the child is still alive, and thus the principle is broken. If we can execute child rapists, are there are other non-lethal crimes that we should consider executing people for? How about rape of adults? How about defrauding old age pensioners? How about theft over a million dollars? How about theft of any kind?

You may say that's reductionist, but once you breach the principle, even for a notorious type of crime, you open the door for redefinition all the way down the line. And we've had legal systems where non-lethal acts, heck even non-violent acts were punishable by death. The Mosaic Code requires men who practice homosexual intercourse are to be killed, adulterers are to be killed, blasphemers, witches, rude children, death death death.

So while I can't say why you got permabanned on Reddit (or was it just a sub), which usually takes one helluva over the top post, your basic idea is incredibly problematic, and shifts punishment back across a legal principle that Cicero had established over a century before the birth of Christ. It means that a new principle (or an old one) involves the notoriety of a crime as the metric for punishment, and not the consequence. Consequence is at least to some degree objectively measurable; dump toxic goo into a stream, we can take a stab at what the damage over the short, medium and long term will be. Rape a child, and we can make some pretty good educated guesses as to what the short, medium and long term consequences for the child and their family will be. Execute people because you clutched your pearls exra-hard, and there is no line other than how upset you get by it.