I think I understand the difference at least as well as you do.

First of all "privacy in a piblic place" is exactly what is being asked for. And generally it is not something one can expect.

You're talking about enhanced surveillance which does in fact have constitutional limits for the government, but less clear limits for private companies or individuals. In the latter situation, I think they need to cross the line into stalking or harassment before there is a legal case. But IANAL, so consider that.

Good point. IANAL, but I was in a discussion on this site a week or two ago regarding Flock, did some research, and learned that while being observed in (or from) a public place, even with a camera, is not a violation of privacy, the use of enhanced technologies could violate the Fourth Amendment. "Enhanced" supposedly meant things like telephoto lenses or thermal imagers, but I can imagine it also meaning algorithmic analysis.

That's for government surveillance. Private surveillance has more complicated laws, some of which vary by state, but what I gather is that "reasonable expectation" of privacy does not apply to video in public spaces. Stalking and harassment can be prosecuted though.

I want to be clear here: I'm no fan of Flock. However, if you want privacy when you're in a public place, you're asking for something as incongruous as water not being wet.

Why do you hope this person is Canadian specifically?

Please note that Canada does in fact protect free speech explicitly in its Constitution, including "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication".

There are exceptions, pertaining to hate speech, defamation, obscenity, child pornography, incitement to violence, and direct threats.

I'm a Canadian who lives permanently in the USA, so I can see it from both sides.

I'll let that stand. But my first reaction when I saw the headline was that it reflected on people who play Doom.

[JK!]

You're focusing on the wrong thing, apparently in an attemp to distract us.

You claimed his anecdote inferred an absolute:

I repeat, XXongo did not say that, or even imply that. Your claim that he supports such a view is worse than disingenuous, it's just a flat-out lie.

Your opinion is at odds with the overwhelming majority of psychological professionals. I can't be bothered to give you references. There are too many anyway. Look for them yourself, in the same spirit chefren expressed above.

That's not what XXongo said, and you know it. You made a claim:

and XXongo responded by essentially saying this (paraphrased):

Go away, strawman.

No. Being trans is not a mental illness. Suffering extreme levels of despair because of the way society stigmatizes them is the problem. And it can lead to some trans people taking their own lives.

Also, Spock was more content in a scientific-advisory role than a purely command-centered role. That changed (somewhat) as his career in Star Fleet progressed.

When was Star Trek ever not woke? IMHO it has had a progressive slant ever since TOS.

PCM2 is right: the Hawaii Five-O episode is real, not AI slop. I know, because I saw it when it was broadcast.

Good guess. Holmes and Paltrow are friends, and Paltrow actually appears in this documentary with Holmes.

For anyone who hasn't yet watched the trailer (linked in TFS) ... it's creepy.

A man ought to read just as inclination leads him, for what he reads as a task will do him little good. -- Samuel Johnson

They do seal if you wear them properly. And yes, I do wear glasses.