1) You have been tricked by conservative propaganda. Cashless bail did not increase the rate of crime as compared to cash bail.

2) NY law (and NJ and Illinois) explicitly refused to release violent offenders on cashless bail. California does NOT have a cashless bail law, but the state supreme court has encouraged judges to set cashless bail for non-violent offenders. Both states have explicit language about non-violent only..

3) There were cases when people arrested for non-violent crimes were released on bail and then committed violent offense. There were also cases where the legal definition of violent offenders were ... arguable. But the law said no violent offenders could be released and that law was followed.

4) The real question is, do you think poor people should have no rights and upon being arrested should have to wait in jail for a year or more just because they are poor? You do realize that this will a) cause innocent people to plead guilty to a crime they did not commit if it means they get out of jail in 6 months rather than waiting there a year before they go to trial. b) will destroy their lives even if they are found innocent because a year in jail awaiting trial means they lose their job, house, girlfriend/wife, all while getting assaulted by real criminals, trained by real criminals on how to commit crime and finally JOIN criminal gangs to survive.

5) If you release more people on bail, the number of crimes go up, obviously. This does not mean cashless bail is a bad idea or causing a problem. The question is not whether cashless bail releases commit crimes, but instead Whether people released on cashless bail commit more crimes than people released on cash bail. The answer to that is no. People released on cashless bail are no more likely to commit more crimes than people released on cash bail. The number is about 17% of people released - for both cash bail and cashless bail.

6) If you think the bail system in general is too lenient, you have a better argument, given that 17% commit more crimes.

7) However the real problem is the time spent in jail before trial. Justice should happen in less than 3 months, not more than 12.

8) Cashless bail for non-violent offenders reduces the number of people that end up becoming hardened criminals. That has been proven repeatedly.

9)Most importantly states with cashless bail have LOWER crime rates than states that require cash bail.

There is no way us liberals from NJ (217 violent crimes per 100,000), Illinois (218/100k), and NY (380/100k) are going to follow the advice of idiots from Texas (389/100k), Missouri (462/100k) or Louisiana (519/100k).

NJ and Illinois are just too good at crime prevention to care what the conservatives say. NY (and California) are middle of the pack and might listen, but not likely when idiots talk dumb shit and make up lies.

Given that the price of memory is so high that cell phone production is dropping like a stone, it is clear to me that used cellphones will end up being worth a lot more - both for this kind of networked computing and merely to remove and reuse parts

We already have printers called 4d printers. It's designed to change shape over time. This allows you to print something with less supports that while 'drying' bends itself into a shape that would have required a lot more supports.

The nordic prison system has a recidivism rate is 20% within the first 2 years and about 25% within 5 years. The US system is 39% within 3 years.

Why don't we use something closer to Norways?

Because the Conservatives call it 'soft on crime'. They have 3 levels of prison: High, Low and Transition. The Low Security prison they use for non-violent first time offenders is what the GOP calls a 'country club' type with private rooms, lots of classes, library and therapy.

You only get their High Security if you were violent or become violent in the Low Security prison.

They also have a half way house/ transition system where they live in a prison but are allowed to go to work outside.

But this is clearly not "Hard on Crime", so Americans refuse to use it.

Note, in my opinion the "Hard on Crime" approach fails because normal prison is hard on crime so when someone claims to be Hard on Crime, what they end up doing is:

1) Push Judges and Police to be hard on SUSPECTS, resulting in more false accusations and more time in Jail waiting for a trial - both of which encourage people to commit more crimes.

2) Push newbie criminals to make friends in jail with the criminals as the guards are cruel and dismissive of the prisoner's concerns.

3) Prevent criminals from getting training and other resources they need while in prison, resulting in a much harder time getting out of the criminal life.

The batteries would have to be specially designed to fit in the 3d print. 3d printing by itself is both slower and more expensive than injection molding (unless it is a small run). Throw in custom batteries are you are probably making the items 10x more expensive for a moderate sized job. Economies of scale might work for something we are making in the tens of thousands.

LLM predict what responses a human considers to be normal. It does not tell the truth, it does not have a memory of what it has done, it does not think logically.

The real problem is that the use of the Flock system is cheap. If the cops had to pay $1,000 per search request I guarantee that a police officer would become a gate keeper ensuring that each and every request was valid.

Make "Buy", "Own", and "Sell" reserved for actually owning something rather than licensing.

Require the use of words like "Rent", "License", and "Borrow" when we are talking about licensing things.

After all when you pay a landlord a monthly fee for the use of an apartment nobody says you bought it, own it, or it was sold.

Similarly, we need to require IP businesses to follow the same conventions.

You are either an AI bot, a paid propagandists, or an uneducated fool. Not paying for something is not the same as denying you the right to do it. The pay wall is not insurmountable. There are lots of cheap colleges that cost less than $5,000 a year.

Federal scholarships are not the only source of scholarships. States routinely offer them (and there are states that hate the liberals and states that hate the conservatives). In addition there are LOTS of private charities that already offer scholarships.

Also, the schools already deny the people the right to an education. You try getting into college if they deem you below their standards.

Finally, you are a damn fool for thinking we should give them to everyone. Why this would be a bad idea:

1)Such an attempt would not only be doomed to failure by the Republicans, it is the kind of dumb ass thing they use as propaganda making all liberals look foolish.
2) It would be too expensive. There is only so much money to go around.
3) Some people fail out of college already, if all went then it would be a massive waste of money.
4) College is not only used to educate the population, but also to grade them. We need ways to tell between those that are good people but not highly qualified and those that are highly qualified. While we could use their GPA, it is much easier to just ask "is she a college graduate?"

I believe education is a right for all, but we also have the right to choose who we help with our limited assets. If you can't convince another to charitably pay for it, you should have to earn the $5000 per year to do it yourself.

But this only works if it is relatively easy for both the 10% smartest and the 10% who came from literally nothing but still did well in high school can get educated without crippling themselves financially.

We really should abandon the Student Loan idea.
1) It is not reasonable to expect people that by definition have NOT had a college education to make good decisions about student loans. Some of their parents may have collage degrees, but not all.

2) They are long term loans that cannot be refinanced. If interest rates rise, the borrowers make out like a bandit. But if they fall, they get screwed.

3) Scholarships are better ideas.

Why scholarships are better:

You can quite easily pick the person who really needs it and/OR the person that most benefits from it.

You can get much stricter on which education institutions qualify for them. This will end a bunch of scams, such as the schools that if graduate from get a $60,000 per year job but cost $900,000 to go to.

You can put in grade requirements for continuing them for next year.

Scholarships fight educational inflation, while loans encourage it. If schools know the main government scholarships only pay Y on average, they will have immense pressure to keep their costs below Y. The government can easily set the values of the scholarships to discourage inflation because they do not want to pay more.

But banks will always be willing to increase the amount they loan to the students. To them, the cost of education is a GOOD thing because larger loans means larger profits.

Garbage regulations like IP create these behemoths. If you want freedom, stop regulating monopolies into existence.

They got immunity for things they published and pushed on people on the grounds that others said it, they were just the promoters and publishers.

We finally figured out how to sue them not for publishing, but for their massive and unethical attempts to push and promote what others said.

So now they ask for immunity.

No.

They are the problem. They are guilty. Note, they didn't HAVE to be the problem. They could have promoted things based on truth and value rather than how much attention they got by being outrageous and dishonest.

The small nuclear reactor people believe:

1) The major business problems with nuclear reactors are caused by the time it takes to get regulatory approval rather than actual safety, actual science, or even by complying with the actual safety regulations.

2) That if they make a nuclear reactor small enough, they can get a generic regulatory approval once and use it multiple times, all while satisfying the regulations and by being safe.

3) That it will be easier to ramp up, ramp down, fix problems, and dispose of after end of life of small nuclear reactors as opposed to large ones.

#1 is probably true. It is clear that nuclear power plants take a LOT of time to satisfy the regulators they are safe, but people can and do succeed in doing it.

#2 is up for debate. A lot of people think that the 'small' nuclear reactors they propose will still be large enough to take a lot of regulatory approval for the geographic locations and they will never get a generic approval to build model 1 and ship it everywhere.

#3 is also questionable. If you have even 4 active reactors, you can probably schedule the ramping up and ramping down on a continuous schedule for maintance. But the fixing of problems may take MORE time because they are shrinking it. And a lot of people think the size they are describing will not be easier to dispose of at end of life.

If they cannot get a generic regulatory approval for use in 'most' places, it may never be a good idea to build small nuclear reactors (except on vehicles like an aircraft carrier, submarines, rockets, etc).