Is there anyone who is aware of concepts like Secure Flight and the No-fly List really thinking that prior flight information isn't being kept by DHS and used in evaluating future security stance?
If you fly a one-way, last minute cash ticket to Iran, be prepared for that flight data to be taken into account on future US flights. This should be obvious to everone.
Yes and no. Getting forward-depoyed engineers out to somewhere near a combat zone entails risks, but if you've got combat-ready individuals who've also got both the training *and* the authorization to do field repairs it gives a lot more flexibility to the entire system. In addition to that, there's an inescapable morale improvement when orders reflecting some semblence of reality and sanity come down from the top, and saying "yes, you can do what you need to do to get your job done with product XYZ" actually counts for a lot.
And beyond that, remember that the military is not in any way, shape, or form "all grunts." If some of those contractors want to enlist or join direct, there's a market for that too.
The principle here is simple. A journalistic outlet or blogger reported on a story and asserted that a person was involved with a terrorist organization. The university made its choice. Whether the outlet was or was not correct is a matter for the courts if the subject decides to sue for defamation or libel. AI doesn't really matter here, and plenty of anonymous reporting has indeed happened for legitimate, non-nefarious reasons.
If the subject does decide to sue the author, then discovery will turn up what it turns up.
My money, however, would be on the student lying through their teeth about their actions.
the virus that causes COVID-19 and a host of other conservative discussion topics
Who in their right mind approved this sentence? Why is "the virus that causes COVID-19" (and thus the global pandemic that was the most important thing since 9/11 in defining modern life) a "conservative discussion topic"? That should be an "everyone discussion topic."
Most immigrants are a) fleeing from a very grim situation, b) paid a LOT of money to get here, or c) physically risked their lives and basically ran a triathlon to make it here. The last thing theyre gonna do is utterly blow it by picking up a criminal record or talking sh&t. The vast majority of immigrants keep their heads down and are VERY law abiding. Crime rates among immigrants are much lower than citizens. Despite what you hear on right wing media.
You're being a bit cagey and loose with the term "immigrant" there. This covers everything from business owners to border crossers to student visa overstays to anyone else.
And yes, it's entirely reasonable for USCIS to do due diligence before giving someone the privilege of permanent residency, and certainly before becoming a US Citizen. If they came in in 2013 or 2017 and post heavily in support of Hamas on Twitter and Facebook, there's no particular reason the US *has* to provide them citizenship. And, in fact, it's debatable whether we want to keep them in the US at all even now.
Plenty of stuff out there is not appropriate for kids. Securing network via filtration is pointless on a mobile device, and kids are more than smart enough to get around various other mechanisms to access things they shouldn't be able to, including social media.
The principle has always been that something that could be secured in real life (18+ shops and events) should also be able to be secured in the cyber world, but there was never a practical way to validate it that didn't also risk exposing the token and identity of the user access it to be vulnerable to exposure. Well, we have a system now. Smart phones, like them or not, function as de-facto IDs already, and there is no rational reason for Google and Apple to be unwilling to associate the age of the cloud account holder as an AVS somehow. We have the biometrics, we have the pervasive internet, we have the standardized protocols and simple QR-encoding of relevant authentication. Banning under 16 users (for example) from Snapchat is a single, simple switch that the industry has not been willing to enable. If legislation is required to force their hand, so be it.
I'm sure for a certain percentage of people, talking to a shrink leads to rooting out some other underlying cause rather than true gender dysphoria and further treatment becomes unnecessary. Of course, that's a bit like saying because you went to the doctor thinking you had Covid and it turned out to actually be a run-of-the-mill head cold, therefore Covid doesn't exist.
That "certain percentage of people" that have an "other underlying cause rather than true gender dysphoria" is around 95%. You're being a bit too glib with your analogy.
In a post-pandemic world that proved WFH was perfectly viable, he’s wrong.
Post-pandemic we've proved WFH is viable. In an emergency. That doesn't mean it's preferable to regular office presence when it comes to productivity for the company.
Someone is unenthusiastic about your work.
