Even when you delete a social media account, the information is generally preserved. You'll probably be required to disclose all social media accounts which have at some time been under your control under penalty of perjury. Even if you can't unlock those old accounts, the information might still be accessible to the government. You might be required to sign a waiver granting all social media companies permission to disclose all information (including deleted posts).

I haven't seen the details of this new policy, but I'm sure you'll be required to fill out a form which says to list all social media accounts that are under your control, and at the bottom of the form will be a space to sign your name with the note (standard on federal forms) that it is an offense under section whatever of the United States Code to knowingly provide false information on the form punishable by a fine of not more than $250,000 and a prison sentence of not more than five years. So, you're taking a big risk. If, at any future time, there's an investigation which reveals the existence of undisclosed social media accounts which existed at the time you filled in the form, you are a felon and could be imprisoned.

Exactly. The headline is wrong. It says "Facial recognition error" and there was no facial recognition error. It correctly identified her. She was wrongly added to the database.

Yes. In five, ten, fifteen, or twenty years, AI will look nothing like it does now. Look how much progress has been made in the last three years!

But it's not criminal to declare your income. Only to not declare it.

Neither do humans if they are engaging in stalking behavior. The issue here should really be about the speech and not the agent which communicates it. If the speech would not be illegal for a human to utter, there is no reason it should be treated differently if "spoken" by A.I. software. Computer software is considered speech under the First Amendment, and that should cover any communications by the software. But the First Amendment doesn't cover all speech. Inciting crime, uttering threats, stalking and harassing, libel and slander, are all categories of speech not protected by the First Amendment. A.I. should not be treated differently than humans in that regard.

And those arguing in favor of these lawsuits seem to want to have it both ways. On the one hand, they say A.I. bots have agency and as non-humans aren't protected by the first amendment. But one cannot collect damages from a computer as a computer owns no capital. So, when it comes to the lawsuits, those same people say the computers don't have agency, and the human owners should be financially responsible for damages. You can't have your cake and eat it too!

Do you really want schools to be policing your children's Internet use off campus?

That is simply incorrect. Companies have free speech rights too. Do you think they shouldn't. The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and CNN are all companies. Should they not have free speech rights?

They are an insurance company. They need that information to properly insure drivers and comply with state laws.

I think the show Breaking Bad may have glamorized this sort of thing, and makes it seem like kind of a cool lifestyle.

This isn't about minors' rights. This is about the rights of any individual of any age who wishes to participate in online discussions without revealing their real name. There are many legitimate reasons for this: LGTBQ+ people who want support but aren't out of the closet yet, drug addicts seeking advice on how to find treatment, whistleblowers who are afraid of repercussions at their place of employment, people discussing political or religious views that might be unpopular or politically incorrect, etc. The list goes on and on. In today's cancel culture, the right to anonymous speech is more important than ever.

Mozart's 5th? His 5th what? Symphony? If so, that is a very early work no one knows and would not be played on a piano or any other single instrument anyway. Could you be talking about Beethoven's 5th Symphony? That is indeed a masterpiece for full orchestra.

By your logic, if I choose not to drive my car cause I don't want to comply with traffic laws, I should be fined. Yeah, that makes sense!

Actually Restrict=Ban for those for whom the restrictions apply. So how, exactly, do you separate those who do get to own a gun from those who don't?

Many have correctly pointed out that Klein bottles are nothing new and glass blowers have been making them for some time. The headline is therefore misleading. Also, these aren't even real Klein bottles as a true Klein bottle can't exist in a three dimensional space.

All that being said, don't blame Cliff for the misleading headline. He didn't post it. He is, in fact, a really interesting guy. He's a frequent contributor to the Numberphile channel on YouTube and his videos are always interesting to watch. He's a real engineering nerd and in one video he shows how he stores all his Klein bottles in a crawlspace under his house and he built a robot that can drive around in said space to store and fetch these bottles. You should really check out some of his videos: he's a really entertaining and informative guy.