Funny, workers were quite productive on six day weeks back in the 40s and 50s when that was the norm. It wasn't until the 60s or so when regular workers started getting five day weeks, largely because of union efforts. Now, five day weeks are normal and workers feel put upon if they're asked to work six in an emergency.

This is why we need to pass a SIMPLE amendment:
We, the Citizens of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, shall have the right to amend the constitution directly, by having a simple majority of voters of three fourths of the states OR two thirds of voters in two thirds of the states, within a 10 year period of the first state passing the amendment.

A simple amendment like that would allow us to fix a large number of issues that CONgress will not do. Why will they not do it? Because they are controlled by 2 horribly corrupt parties that are controlled by rich ppl, businesses, and even foreign governments. We need to take back our government.

????
WTF does your second url have to do with ANY of this? 2 criminals were illegally stopped, but not due to any information from above.

Fusion centers? Are you talking about information moving from local LEOs up to the FBI and DNI??
Personally, I would prefer that information to go to DNI et. al, and not FBI, but that is for judges to decide. Even if the information flows downwards, I am good with that, AS LONG as it was legally obtained and is applicable to the situation. For example, NSA did NOT tap into to Trump's calls. OTOH, they DO tap various Russian calls, of which obviously a number of trump calls BEFORE he made president was done (this is why NSA objected to giving him, his family, and certain members of his admin access to intel, but esp. to Russian intel). If NSA had learned that Trump was getting marching orders from putin to sell fentanyl on the street, that should not be allowed to be sent down. Why not? Because this is not about terrorism/spying, it is about a criminal charge, which is where NSA is NOT concerned. However, I do not know if such information IS flowing downwards. I would hope not.

So, you do not think that NSA, DIA, etc should have the ability to know as much about Americans as China and Russia legally do?
Why is that? If you had paid attention to Snowden the ILLEGAL spying that was going on, was NOT from NSA iteself, but from individuals in there using gear that was only meant to go after terrorists, spies, etc. but instead using it on their own families/friends.

And there is a lot less sharing of information in the 5Is than you realize. To ask one of the others means that you generally have to show some sort of reason for it. Not a warrant, but certainly not the wild sharing that you seem to think is going on.

As long as other nations can purchase this, then NSA, CIA and our general intelligence community should be able to access that without a warrant.
Now, as far requiring it for DoJ/FBI/local police/etc... GREAT.

It's their choice; they can either take a pay cut or start working at the office again. If the money means that much to them they'll come back to the office. Of course, that means that they'll be spending at least part of that money on their commute but probably not all of it. And, if they quit, that won't look good when they're interviewing for a next job along with the fact that since they quit, they aren't eligible for Unemployment.

I don't think you understood my post. I'm not saying that any companies are currently docking paychecks going to people who WFH and I'm not (exactly) saying that they should. I'm suggesting that CEOs are going to start seeing this as a way to get employees back to the office. And, although I didn't mention it before, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that some people would be willing to have their pay docked if it meant that they didn't have to commute any more.

Personally I'm waiting for some creative CEO to start using that fact to get people back to the office. Consider what would happen if your wages were restructured so that a percentage was allocated as compensation for your commute. As long as you're in the office every day, nothing changes. Yes, you can WFM, but if you do, you don't get that part of your wages for that day. Legal? Probably. Popular with the staff? Hell no! Would it get people back in the office? Some of them, probably; how many is anybody's guess.

They are NOT using AI to go after wealthy payers. They are using AI to figure out who to look which has a high probability to cheating the system. The fact that they are wealthy has NOTHING to do with it.

I find it interesting that the woke are the ones that scream about words having meaning/power, but then turn right around and screw with things like this BS.
I say go after these a55holes that are trying to hide paying their taxes.
But even better would be to re-write our taxes so that they are fair and near impossible for someone to cheat at.

First off, I said, bad title:

No Consent or ppl in that.

Secondly, adding "without consent" does not mean that it is a particular person's image, but could still require consent by someone else to create a totally fake one (which would be horrible, yet, governments do such BS).

Giving people money for marrying is no different from fining people for not being married in the end.

No. The default result of a marriage is that one person continues to work and the other stays home and takes care of it. That means that one income is now supporting two people, and that's what the tax break is intended to address.

I do think that both parents regardless of their relationship with the other parent should see tax breaks for having children since having children should be promoted.

Really? Why do you think that a man should get tax breaks for fathering children if he's abandoned the relationship and makes no effort to help the mother either by being there or by paying child support?

It is images of OTTHER PEOPLE, not just images.

Especially when you consider that she's said to have little patience for basic editing. I've not read any of her work (I'm not interested in that type of story.) but I understand that her syntax sometimes leaves quite a bit to desire. As an example, I once ran across a sample of her work where a misplaced modifier made it look like a woman's eyes were a gift from her father rather than the necklace she was wearing.

That is pretty much what JPL did.