Nice theory. But why would they need to ask? They just offer a salary that is insufficient if the candidate has a family and the candidate with the family quickly answers "No".

If none of the candidates accepts, then they can look for more candidates or call around with slightly better offers until they find a fish.

I think most of those things are clumsy bandages. The fundamental requirement of a real solution would be to transfer money to people who are doing the really difficult work of raising children. However, it looks less expensive to count on lust for sex and love of your own children to get as much as possible of the work "for free". And CPS is another bandage for the resulting problems...

NAK

No thanks. YouTube is the largest scam in this story. (That'll teach you not to ask me? And I'm still going to fall short of Funny...)

It would be interesting to see the real financial data. I think the google actually knows how the money works in YouTube, but revealing how the trick works could create a "That trick never works" again situation. However the general outlines are pretty clear.

YouTube gets lots of eyeballs. That's largely because there is lots of new content all the time, and creating that content is not seen as a cost on the google's side. They basically take a free-speech-ask-no-questions approach, but I'm pretty sure the real data would show that most of the most attractive content is not little guys exercising their free speech, but either big guys trying to get some free publicity, normally with excerpts, or outright criminals pirating the best stuff they can find and copy. But the real question is how much loot google is making from advertising versus how much comes from people paying to avoid some of the advertising...

So yeah, I'm glad the cops finally got around to doing something about this flamboyant and moderately profitable scam, but "Heck no thanks" to watching the YouTube spin version, even if it was cut under ten minutes. Crime is too profitable these years.

Disclaimer needed? I sort of listen to YouTube while I'm doing other stuff. Whenever I notice an ad I flip back to that tab and cut it off. But there's some recursive humor in there because some of the listening time is while I'm scanning the fresh videos (in the subscribed channels, mostly humor) to see if there are any to add to the "watch later" list. Equilibrium around 10 per day? (So my "best stuff" is mostly advertising for tickets to live comedy.) But my actual "watching" time is minimal. I mostly don't look unless I hear something that doesn't make sense without looking at it...

The Privacy Act of 1974 technically restricts what personally identifable information (PII) a federal agency can collect and retain. I would be OK extending this to state and local agencies. That would potentially give us a way to go after state laws that require age verfication in devices and operating systems. But it seems that there is no political will to pump the brakes on the surveillance state.

If by simple, you mean simplistic, then yeah. What you're forgetting is that every time a bomb kills someone's mother, father, brother, sister, wife, son, or daughter, another America hater is born. So there's likely to be an endless supply of irrational leaders, so long as they are put into power by someone bombing the previous leader along with random military targets.

The only regime changes that are ever really positive long-term are regime changes led by the people of a country against their leaders. All other regime changes are statistically more likely to make things worse than better.

Let me restate that. Most of what makes neighborhood streets dangerous is vehicles and pedestrians using the same space at similar times.

Who has priority is largely uninteresting, because ultimately if a car hits you, you're still probably dead whether you had the right of way or not.

Ostensibly, sure, if you got rid of all the cars, streets would be safer for pedestrians, but they would also be a huge waste of space, because pedestrians don't need huge roads to walk. Roads exist principally for cars. The fact that pedestrians have to cross them is just an unfortunate design constraint that's hard to avoid cheaply, and giving pedestrians priority is mostly just feel-good policymaking that doesn't solve any of the fundamental problems.

The only truly safe way to share the space is to ensure that pedestrians aren't in the road when cars are. The best approach, at least in cities, is second-floor walkways, so that pedestrians and cars are never vertically at the same traffic layer. A slightly less optimal, but still reasonable approach is to give pedestrians a separate walk cycle in which the entire intersection is theirs. Pedestrians have priority during that cycle, and cars have priority the rest of the time, and as long as everyone follows the rules, nobody gets hurt.

But none of those solutions work for neighborhood streets, which is why the presence of pedestrians on neighborhood streets without sidewalks and proper traffic control for pedestrians results in the roads being inherently more dangerous than other streets.

SS Officer #2: Er, Hans?
        SS Officer #1: Have courage, my friend.
        SS Officer #2: Yeah. Er, Hans, I've just noticed something...
        SS Officer #1: [Looking through binoculars] These communists are all cowards.
        SS Officer #2: Have you looked at our caps recently?
        SS Officer #1: Our caps?
        SS Officer #2: The badges on our caps, have you looked at them?
        SS Officer #1: What? No. A bit.
        SS Officer #2: They've got skulls on them. Have you noticed that our caps have actually got little pictures of skulls on them?
        SS Officer #1: Uh, I don't...
        SS Officer #2: Hans... are we the baddies?

Ever heard of a race to the bottom?

So you have two candidates for a job. But one of them has a family to support and the other one is still living at home. You don't think that's relevant to the salary offer that each candidate will consider acceptable?

Too bad the future of society depends on people having families and therefore on having incomes high enough to support families. Unintended consequences and all that stuff.

Actually the big winners are pretty clear: Netanyahu and Putin. And they are NOT tired of winning yet. Especially not on America's dime. And speculators with insider information. They also won too much and are still winning.

I'm not sure who the biggest losers are yet. Obviously the Iranians are leading candidates, especially any moderate Iranians running loose in Iran. They were probably the most targeted victims the day after the war started.

My growing concern is with Xi's plans to get in on the winning. What sort of "other shoe" is Xi going to drop on the YOB when they meet? Some kind of deal providing Chinese boots on Iranian ground to "fix" the Hormuz problem? Perhaps in exchange for a permanent military base on Taiwan? Let's have a "great deal" to eliminate any threat of a messy amphibious invasion? Or maybe offer the YOB a couple of hotel towers with golf courses near Shanghai and Hong Kong? The corruption also knows no bounds.

Actually they take pictures that include the driver's face. Just recently read about someone being impressed by the high quality of the images. They sent copies with the citation. The question of the identity of the driver seems like a minor one at that point. They would only need to confirm that the face matches a known face. If you tried to claim you had loaned the car to someone else, then it becomes even easier, just proving the photographed face does not match the claimed face. But it reverts to the general facial recognition problem if they send a photo of an unknown person who would then have to be identified using a large database of faces...

However the direction the world seems to be heading, the next step will be real time checking of registration information to make sure the car isn't stolen. After all, that could explain some of the speeding. A car thief is extra likely to be in a bit of a hurry.

Not a bad FP branch, and I can add a relevant citation. The book is mostly about abusing people to increase the profits of giant tech companies and Amazon gets plenty of mentions. They tried to focus the book on AI, and that's where most of the examples come from, but it's really a broader thing. If there is interest in more books [On Slashdot? ROFLMAO] I can dig up some others from the last few years. But this one was published last year:

Feeding the Machine by Muldoon, Graham, and Cant.

They're especially good at enforcing silly rules. The rule-making process in Japan sometimes produces terrible rules, which then get enforced with enthusiasm. Or is it worse when the rules get case-by-case treatment that can make them effectively meaningless except as threats?

So anyway, I think the opening joke was weak and the story itself didn't get any attention in Japan. The FP numbers work out at a thousand bucks per "cybersecurity engineer", which is just silly. If the decimal place slipped twice and it was supposed to be $100,000/engineer, then it's only 10,000, which is actually a reasonable number to hope for some good. Unfortunately, cybersecurity is a weak chain game, which in this case means finding any vulnerability defended by a lesser engineer. The value of a top "cybersecurity attacker" is unlikely to be capped at such a small number as $100,000 and someone is gonna git overrun and breached.

Returning to the topic of "attention in Japan", absence of evidence is not proof of anything. However if it was a big deal then it should have made the local news... My bad. Turns out it did: https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworl... Or did it?

Oh wait. Is it possible the Slashdot version is wrong? NHK says it's about AI with cybersecurity getting a side-mention. Investing in AI? Where have I seen that story before. Oh yeah. Everywhere.

And one more thing. About the new Subject. The particularly stupid new rules I was thinking about involve a new campaign against bicycles. Enough to convince me to get rid of my bike. Not worth more hassles, but my typically negative prediction is that bike problems are minor and bike benefits are significant, so if the new rules push more people to buy cars then the net effects will be mostly negative...

Attacking nuclear facilities is at least moderately rational. Various countries have done that half a dozen times over the past few years. Attacking drone manufacturing and storage might also be reasonable.

But...

What does an illegal decapitation attack have to do with nukes? Do you think the new supreme leader is going to somehow be more rational than the last one? There is a fundamental difference between going after clear military targets to prevent Iran from developing weapons that threaten their neighbors and going after civilian and government targets.

No, they will keep doing this until they are a nuclear power. They've seen what denuclearization did for Ukraine, and it's hard to argue with their logic. Having nuclear weapons is a strong deterrent to invaders, who realize that the response could be swift and devastating at a scale that countries never recover from.

It's unclear what other things they will do at that point. We can only speculate. Mind you, I don't like the idea of a nuclear-armed Iran, but again, I see no evidence that anything happening over there right now is going to change anything, or even delay it enough to matter.

Is anything that the U.S. government is doing right now going to change that reality? The way you prevent them from laying mines is the same way that you prevent oil from leaving Iran — bombing ships the second they leave the harbor. If you're not willing to start with a full air and naval blockade, you've already failed, and the only thing continuing the war can do is increase the number of ways that you've failed.

My AI says there aren't enough em dashes, so you're probably both wrong.