Correction, the dystopian interpretation of the constitution purveyed by our current lunatic fringe Supreme Court is that they have the authority to do so. The constitution says otherwise, but at some point, our government stopped actually reading it.

You never could. Parents do their kids' homework all the time, or siblings, or friends. Ideally, teachers should give a large pile of optional homework. State right up front that although they will grade it, it will not count towards your final grade, and the grade on each homework paper will be given as a percentage of the problems attempted, not of the total set of problems. So if you do five problems and get them all right, you get 100, and if you do 50 problems and get most of them right, you get 90. At that point, the purpose of homework is primarily to help the students learn, rather than being primarily a way to evaluate the students. Give some participation points for doing some of the homework, but not based on correctness.

This has three benefits. First, the smart kids who understand the material quickly will do just enough to make sure they understand it and then will stop wasting their time, but will still have feedback on the work that they did do. Second, the teachers won't have to grade as much work from students who don't really need that much extra work. Third, no at-home cheating, whether by technology or by other people will distort their grades.

Obviously this doesn't work for everything — essays, for example — but for general homework, it's a big win.

You can certainly do that along with what I suggested, though I'm not sure how much difference it will make in the grand scheme of things.

Agreed.

On the other hand, the fraud losses are a lot lower, and as far as I know the transaction fee is the same, and the credit card company pays the 0.15% fee out of their cut. So while it theoretically *could* eventually drive up the rate in the future, I don't think that's happening currently.

It's time YouTube gets some actual competition. Maybe it'll force them to revert some of the enshittification it's been going through. The crap is near unusable these days.

I don't know a single person who ever said that they want more or bigger touchscreens in their car.

Quite the opposite. I want physical controls and so do most people I've talked to. This is a car, not an iPad. Most of it I should be able to operate without taking my eyes off the road. And a touchscreen doesn't offer that.

In fact, Euro NCAP agrees. If you want a 5-star rating, you need physical controls.

The only people who want touchscreens are the car manufacturers, because it's cheaper and easier.

No one is going to visit a website they can't even pronounce let alone spell.

Assuming it is installed inside somehow, you can avoid the projectile risk by not using any ferrous metal in its construction. Non-ferrous metals (e.g. dental fillings) aren't a problem in an MRI, though you may feel the electrical eddy currents induced by the magnetic fields. For something like an LCD panel, you'd probably want to shield the ever-living crap out of it to minimize problems, and I'm not even certain that it is feasible for that reason, but that's different from the LCD panel physically flying off the mount.

Step 1: Propose a new data center.
Step 2: Leak false information claiming the current city council is planning to approve it.
Step 3: Agitprop a recall election.
Step 4: Front two slates of staunchly anti-data-center sockpuppets, one liberal and one conservative.
Step 5: Have the winner approve your data center.

And that's why "betrayal of public office" needs to be a capital offense.

Don't interpret this as me having an opinion on this specific article (I don't), but that's a gross misrepresentation of what the law requires. As someone running a business, you *do* have a fiduciary duty to the stockholders, but that's not the same thing as requiring you to maximize shareholder value at all costs. Doing what is best for the company and the shareholders does not strictly mean more dollars.

For example, if a company had a choice whether to make a drone that would make a lot of money by selling to militaries, but would be used to annihilate the shareholders, no rational person would claim that the fiduciary duty requires them to build the drone.

More broadly, companies have a responsibility to behave ethically, for two reasons:

• Perceptions of unethical behavior can impact a company's long-term profitability by discouraging customers/users.
• Unethical behavior is often illegal, and when it isn't illegal, it often becomes illegal as soon as a company demonstrates that it is possible.

In other words, behaving unethically is how companies find themselves massively regulated in ways that negatively impact long-term profits. Every antitrust suit is an example of this, as the only reason those laws exist is because some company previously behaved unethically.

Well then, it's a good thing only "ordinary members of the public" would ever dream of trying to crack your service to provide unintended access! Those pesky Russian hackers would never dream of using means "not discoverable through ordinary use", right?

I don't mean this to be pedantic, but humans do that as well. I'm singing along with what's on the radio as I write this; and someone far more musically talented than myself could no doubt substantially reproduce it word-for-word, note-for-note, and beat-for-beat.

If nothing else, I'm excited to see how the next decade of AI-related legal cases shines a spotlight on the (usually unspoken) legal assumption that only humans have agency.

There are at least four major Federal subsidy programs for providing high-speed internet access to rural and underserved populations - BEAD ($42.45B), ReConnect (open-ended), Community Connect (open-ended), and RDOF ($20.4B).

Won't someone please think of poor, poor SpaceX and all the other "unreasonably prejudiced" satellite internet companies who have been all too happy to suck at Uncle Sam's teat for decades while failing to meet the required level of service?

To be fair, back then, 40 was old. But yes, you get my point.

Well, yeah, but those are still cities. Almost twice as many people live in parts of cities that are not "dense urban cores".

And the dense areas involve apartment complexes with hundreds or thousands of units and interior halls, so they're not delivering one package to the building; they're delivering a hundred. It wouldn't make sense to send drones for that.

But if you can handle the suburban sprawl with drones, that's a huge logistics win, because that's where all the time is spent — not by somebody going to an urban-core building and dropping a hundred packages in the mail room, but by somebody going to a hundred individual houses and dropping off a hundred packages one at a time.