Something like that, and see https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com...

“Credit card issuers explicitly and directly charge the rest of the economy for the work involved in recruiting the most desirable customers.”

Stop twisting things to lie by cherry picking what you want. Leaving off what you don’t want to show from these charts is convenient, but anyone can select “countries” and check China again, or any of the rest of the world.

https://ourworldindata.org/gra...

https://ourworldindata.org/gra...

I donâ(TM)t know exactly what âoeinterrogationâ means here, buts itâ(TM)s *sounding* a lot like false imprisonment if done at the hands of the airport employees and not some actual law enforcement agents. Not that Iâ(TM)m a lawyer.

Microsoft claims you can limit - not disable - most things.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en...

Probably more illegal; they’re aircraft under law, so the FAA will be involved.

It’s really just going to be a matter of “how major of a felony” though.

The FAA has rules (Part 107) for commercial sUAS flight; they’re legally considered aircraft. (other parts might apply if they get big enough)

But, yes, they’re regulated, and the FAA has little sense of humor when they hand out 10k, 40k, 100k+ USD fines for messing around before finding out.

Teams and Windows 11 are shit, and everyone knows it. Itâ(TM)s not âoeslickâ or even vaguely usable.
Stop promoting this trash, Slashdot.

Yes, and one dollar = one dollar.

Itâ(TM)s only useful for the same reason it was a thousand years ago: the âoekingâ issued it and said âoepay your taxes with this or else Iâ(TM)ll have you killedâ.

The way this is usually dealt with is forming coalitions; having PR would result in more “parties” or the like, who could each then have their own parties form those coalitions for-a-particular-subject-area with other like-minded parties.

I feel like it could work, and at the least it’d break up the stranglehold we see now.

And now that Apple seems to think they're going to be scanning stuff on your system, like it or not?

How are you going to determine a false positive?

If anyone saved pictures from dating apps, hookup apps, *-gone-wild subreddits, sexts, or anything else - and unlike Apple, we're not going to pretend that humans aren't sexual and don't save sexy pics, girls included; they are sexual, and they DO save sexy pics on their phones - then any of those pics could get flagged by some AI/ML algorithm.

It seems safe to presume that your privacy will then be violated first by those Apple is having check this stuff (and one would further doubt that they'll stop at looking at *just* the image that triggered the algorithm).

Then violated again when Apple's minions report you, and police/agents of the government pour over all of your media.

Then violated again when they decide to charge you with some crime, possibly with a highly subjective component about "appears to be" or whatever, and that arrest/charge shows up... wherever - news media, public records, and so on. (Of course not everyone will be charged; it's highly convenient to only charge the wrong kind of people with certain crimes, or when you want to "throw the book" at someone)

While (for now) it's incumbent upon the government to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt", as we know damn well the mere *accusation* of impropriety regarding sex-anything is enough to damn people in the court of public opinion. ...and if you trust a "jury of your peers" to consistently take a completely legal picture of an adult who happened to do something as simple as shave off his or her body hair and actually, correctly apply "beyond a reasonable doubt" to it when they decide things behind closed doors? Well, I have not one but TWO bridges to sell you.

It's one thing if you can tie an image back to, say, a porn site - and we're talking exact image (file hash) or very heavily image-matched version of it - we know that cloud storage can/will/offer re-compression of images to save space, but in order to actually be "safe", would we all have to become the equivalent of 18 USC 2257 record-keepers lest we get accused of something which we're unable to disprove?

Overall? Well, that was a nice republic (royal) you had there.

In the US, I’d think that this could reasonably be argued as both “wiretapping” and fraudulently altering message traffic by a common carrier.

One hopes AU has similar laws that allow for a prompt, very hard, slap-across-the-face to the company, preferably with a fine large enough pour encourager les autres.

Your statement that it’s “equally wrong to never teach [CRT]” is easily comparable to a demand to teach creationism alongside everything else in school made by the religious: one side (creationism and CRT) denounces the use of reason, reality, and/or even denies that reality can be known (i.e. what he underlying postmodernism/critical theory does); the other relies on the results of the scientific method and reason instead of faith and irrationality.

Likewise, one has a place in education, while the other does not.

Governments *always* exempt themselves; the only surprise anymore would be if they were to explicitly *not* exempt themselves.

Oh, but they can, and do, try.

Replace “arson” with “unjustifiable shootings” and “fire” with “useful, normal, modern guns”...