There should be a required WARRENT ID field and it should be checked against valid active warrents. Otherwise, access denied.

Man, Nicholas Tesla was right when he wrote

Actually, I think I've got this one, other than whether this was really necessary.

Yep.

Unions like SEIU pull this carp all the time. And the politicians they contribute to help them do it.

In Michigan, for example, they "organized" home care "workers" ... who are overwhelmingly just relatives of disabled people. (The state saves a bundle by providing some funds to pay family members for taking care of their own disabled family members.)

How did SEIU do that, you ask, when state law says that the "employer" in this program is the disabled person himself? Why, they got the state Dems to change the law, so that solely for the purpose of collective bargaining, the "employer" is the state! Easy peasy.

For no other purpose though - they "cared" so deeply for these "workers" that they sure as heck were not going to make them true state employees, lol.

Most of the relatives of disabled people were like "WTH is this?" and threw the "organizing" ballots in the trash. So SEIU "won" the "election" to "organize" the "workers". (creating a worldwide shortage of scare quotes in the process)

Utter bottom feeding scum.

But ... but ... I've been told here on /. that police showing up at your door because of a social media post that you've made, say, is perfectly fine, is evidence of the system working, and has no chilling effect at all?

There are layers and layers of irony, I guess ...

I'm saddened that you would allow these researchers to get away with misgendering people.

I"ll just note here that people, and companies such as WP Engine, already use "WP" instead of "WordPress" for precisely this reason. And everyone in this space knows that. There isn't any confusion.

(And I don't want to hear about "confusion" from the guy who's company only exists because of the confusion between wordpress.org and wordpress.com ...)

I'm afraid it's society that's played that joke on you, my friend.

But yes, you don't see that it's a joke ... that's true.

You can ban yourself from using a tool, but you can't ban other people from doing so.

The same people who would confidently tell me that it's impossible to ban, say, drugs, or, I dunno, people illegally crossing borders, will also tell me that we can somehow ban a computer program.

Only women and men?? But what about people who identify as something else?

Sounds pretty discriminatory!

How she got away with it for so long. And then, why did that stop working?

The reason, of course: "she's a woman CEO! In tech!!!"

But - this was right before the intelligentsia decided that 1. "well, white women don't count as women, do they?", and 2. "what's a woman anyway? Anyone can be one!"

So when that sea change started to happen ... she was toast. Her shiny protection bubble was gone.

It happens - my 6th grade desk just happened to be right next to a wall of books with a couple of "Rick Brandt Electronic Adventure" and we were off to the moon and Tibet.

I'd rather spend it on that than on the next utopian scheme that doesn't work.

It's not as if the cities that do these experiments are low tax paradises now.

So, basically, YouTube for AIs?

Of course it is.

But acting as if it were true wins brownie points. And those who espouse it both believe and don't believe it ... classic doublethink.