When it comes to "(anti) trans crap" (for lack of a better word), the question is not about the biological sex of transgenders, but whether biological sex or perceived gender should prevail in various social contexts, and when one would be considered a transgender (self-declared, diagnosed with gender dysphoria, or having undergone sex reassignment surgery). And so on. They are social rather than biological questions, even though biology does play a role, for instance when considering transgenders in sports.

"We need AI to do stuff we can't do"
I am letting AI do that... for stuff that I personally can't do. I've had AI design logos, make short clips, draw cartoons, create avatars for online use, write and perform music. I can't draw, sing or perform for crap, and since this is all for various hobbies, I can't afford the humans who can do all that either.

Not the "brain drain" we were worried about...

That's how a lot of classes were in my high school (Montessori). We were told to read certain chapters of the syllabus ahead of the class, perhaps do a few exercises. In class, the teacher helped with difficult problems, walk the class through the tricky ones, and expand on the material that was studied. And the amount of homework we got was very reasonable.

Removing the swastikas is silly, but I can kinda understand why they didn't want to simulate giving meth to sailors to make them perform...
Then again, in Rimworld (space colony survival game) you can get your team messed up on all manner of stimulants, or even just wire an electrode into their brain's pleasure center. Maybe the difference is that a U-boat crew is a little too close to home.

The problem is not that cellphone location data (or CCTV) was used to figure out who was near a crime scene. The problem (according to the lawyers) is that a search warrant was issued solely on the strength of him being nearby when the crime was committed.

A lot of these things are to access AI. And while I'd love smart glasses that let me tag people so I can always put a name to a face, such an application is a privacy nightmare. Same for AI assistants. Now I understand why companies are scrambling to bring AI into their ecosystem, so far I've not seen many compelling use cases for AI, not in the form of devices like these.

As for facial recognition in security cameras, I already have a solution for that, and it kinda works. Completely off-line and off-cloud.

Many users prefer to get these notifications, either one that tells them a message arrived, or even one displaying the message itself. Up to the user to show or disable them. Only problem is that not many people understand how notifications work, or that they are stored outside of the app data store.

Some investor pointed this out a while ago, and it's worth looking into. If you're investing in EFTs on US indices, chances are you are exposed to the risk of the AI bubble collapsing.

Not really. The 2x $1000 or so I spent on targeted ad campaigns have been worth it. If they weren't targeted, it would be far less effective; there's quite a few articles pointing out that targeted ads have a far higher click-through rate, and a higher conversion rate as well. Without targeting, my ad budget might still be $2000 but I wouldn't be spending it.

That's not going to happen. The global advertising market is approaching a $1 trillion dollar value annually, and personalized ads have driven a lot of that growth. Personalized ads make it possible to zoom in on your target demographic more precisely, so you're not paying for impressions going to the wrong target group. It made advertising affordable to people who could not have justified the cost before. Hell I've ran a few global online ad campaigns for an app I wrote as a hobby project.

No, they'll not going to kill the goose that lays those particular golden eggs.

"applying the ban only to the use of personal data to set higher prices without establishing a baseline or standard price".
So you set very high baseline prices, then use personal data to offer varying discounts. That does look like a loophole.

How about "No dynamic prices or discounts based on personal or biometric data are allowed"? Put in an exemption to offer a discount to certain classes (student or vet discounts, discounts for seniors)
In the past dynamic prices (discounts) were used to increase turnover: get new customers in the door with offers, keep them coming back with loyalty programs, and have them buy more with volume discounts. Now, it is used to extract the maximum amount of cash from every customer. It seems that the MBAs who came up with this have fully embraced the first tenet of communism: from each according to their ability.
"How much is this item?"
- "How much do you have?"

I'm not so sure that those who have studied in those fields are much better. These notions sound no worse than some of the ideas being bandied about in places like the WEF. They sound like stoner friends sitting around in a bar, having beers and philosophizing about how they are going to fix the world, except these guys have the riches or/and the political clout to actually try and bring some of that about. Either way, it's people who think they know better, governing over people rather than for them.

That should be: "without revealing your identity to the site requesting your verified age". And hopefully it will also be without revealing the website you're visiting to the age verification provider. Both requirements can be fulfilled, and hopefully this system will employ such a scheme.

If you're going to enforce age restrictions, this is the way to do it, preserving anonymity. It beats 3rd party age verification services like the ones that porn sites used to use. They needed your credit card, name and address, and the age verification provider could see which sites you were visiting.