There are a few pressures that interact to lead to this.

First, you have bureaucratic imperatives, like all large orgs. The iron law of a bureaucracy is the bureaucracy fights to maintain the staus quo. This includes the existence of the bureaucracy, the continuation of which is the highest priority. The number of organizations that have voluntarily disbanded without outside pressure is not zero, but close enough to demonstrate the rule.

Second, you have leadership, which can't really do anything of their own volition that would materially change things. Between parents, politicians, unions, and the reality of budgets[1] and students' situations, it is extremely rare that they have a realistic way to improve things, even assuming they'd otherwise be capable of doing so.

Third, you have parents, or more specifically parent pressure groups. They can make an administrator or teacher's life miserable and there's no good way to counter it, so they tend to get what they want. The good news is they only tend to flare up once in a while, like the "Moms for Liberty" who were deeply concerned withsexual deviance.

Forth, you have both the state and federal bureaucracies, with their own complicated imperatives. State variation is high, ranging from neglect to micromanaging and well-meaning (if frequently clueless) through antagonistic (and frequently clueless). In any case, these tend combine onerous ongoing reporting requirements that costs labor on bullshit with random big mandates that scramble everything you're trying to do.

Fifth, you have teacher's unions. They're doing what they're supposed to - fighting for their members' interests. Those interests run from generally good ideas to self-serving ones. How one feels about that is obviously heavily political in the US; personally, I look at how little money they make for their education requirements and all the shit they have to put up with and marvel that anyone wants to do it.

So now in walks Google or OpenAI with more money than god and an invisible study buddy for each of your kids. Depending where you are, politicians are leaning on you to get with the program, hoping they can downsize away teacher's unions/"win the future"/some of them probably sincerely think this is good.

And then you get the bandwagon effect. Some other school district publishes dodgy, rosy numbers, the robot sales guy sends that article to your supervisor, and suddenly even when everyone knows how this is going to end, the pressure to do it is overwhelming.

A generation later, a new version of the robot sales guy comes knocking...

[1] People frequently point out how much we spend on public education to claim this isn't a problem, but it is. The issue is not absolute numbers, but distribution. We throw a lot of money at some schools and not enough at others. A drive through the rural South looking at the state of school buildings should be enough to tell you there's (more than one) thing wrong with allocation.

Oh my, that's going to be easy. All I need to do is take the entire use case of phones (there's almost nothing a phone can do that someone might not want to do while using these glasses as a display), and union with all AR applications, and union with whatever applications that Meta intends to develop to attract people to the camera-less version of the glasses.

So here's a few: reading texts/emails without having to look down, following a map, playing games, surfing the web (which might include posting to Slashdot), and answering a "what is this thing I'm looking at?" query.

If the robots make it quick, I might take extinction if it means never having to hear about what Zuckerbook said ever again.

A number of countries have accelerated their clean energy transition. Unless you're a coal magnate, delusional or a Xitter troll, that is excellent news.

It also is accelerating the move away from the dollar as the world reserve currency. This is not good news for Usians, is neutral for some, and very positive for some others, so one's outlook on this may vary.

Basically, if you can get Stumpy McDipshit to believe his ego is wrapped up in something, there's a very good chance you can get him to kill it, like everything else he touches.

In this case, he's touching the petroleum industry like it was an ingénue shopping at Bergdorf Goodman.

the vast, overwhelming usage is to produce non-consenting public recordings of people and leak them to Meta for further data mining.

I wonder where we find stats to resolve our disagreement. (I assert it's a rare case, but I'm pulling that "fact" out of my ass. Alas, I think you're also pulling the "overwhelming usage" claim out of yours, too.)

does anyone at all really buy into the idea that guys are following around the women of Walmart to video them?

I do buy into it, but I don't buy into any allegations that it's typical or a significant fraction of users.

I know people who own guns but never shot anyone. I know people who have internet access but never pirated any movies. I know people who have very fast cars but don't get speeding tickets. You'd really be surprised at what so many people don't do, even though they could.

Then there was a case of some perv recording a woman in a shopping centre.

And then there was the case of the Satan-worshipping, D&D-playing Judas Priest fan, who was caught backtalking his mom!

The two different terms you used kind of look like they apply to different things. "Privacy rapist" appears to refer to the person using the product, but "pervert glasses" appears to refer to the product itself. (Maybe you wanted to call the computer a privacy rapist, but I'm going to ass/u/me that you wanted the more mainstream usage of calling the perv who uses the computer a privacy rapist. Please complain if I got this wrong. I only bring up this pedantry, because I want to distinguish computers from their users.)

Computers can be used for lots of things. They can be used for copyright infringement, for example. But I think Slashdot would be in an uproar if we banned computers due to fact that some people use them to infringe copyrights.

But if someone wants to gargoyle up, such that their cameras are on their face instead of on their lapel or hidden in their clothing or hat, the cameras are objectionable because that user might be recording other people.

If we look at it in terms of the user's intent, instead of worrying about what the equipment is capable of doing, this looks like a pretty inconsistent policy.

That said, I'm not going all the way to saying this view is wrong. As a defender, a potential adversary's capabilities are what's important, and you can't trust anyone's intent. So if you're worried someone might record you, it might really make sense to ban all cameras, not just cameras operated by known pervs.

But why don't we have that attitude about equipment's capability to infringe copyright? Shouldn't we ban all computers, since someone might do the wrong thing with them? I guess it comes down to this: because we aren't the defenders in that situation; MPAA is. Seriously, they really did try to ban betamax due to fears that some people might use it wrong. And they bought a whole law (DMCA) to try to ban lots of uses of computers, which they thought might sometimes be precursors to copyright infringement. So maybe this is a rules-for-thee-but-not-for-me thing.

I'm seeing an attitude toward wearable cameras emerge, that policy should be oriented more toward the the innocent maidens than the drooling gargoyles recording the maidens for later fapping. Well, sure, WHEN I PUT IT LIKE THAT! But what if we describe the gargoyle more fairly? Someone at an in-person office meeting, where maybe they wanna see peoples' names with their faces like they did on Zoom. Or someone recording some cops beating a handcuffed suspect. Someone playing games like Pokemon Go. Someone following a course on a map. Or...

What I'm getting at, is that perv glasses might be useful for more than just perving. Maybe they're really great at perving too, but I can think of plenty of harmless applications for them, and I'm not even very visionary or creative.

I don't like that we're looking down on some tech, rather than its abusive users. I'm not particularly attached to wearable cameras and wouldn't ever likely be in the market for Meta's products (any of Meta products, ever) anyway, so it's easy for me to just shrug and let the fascists have their way on this particular issue.

But I sure as fuck don't want to see this toxic attitude continue to spread to other tech. Because if we allow that, then MPAA is going to ban all computers unless they're running MPAA-certified AI lawyers, always spying on us like the pervs that they are. And even that is just the tip of the iceberg on the smackdowns this attitude will unleash.

Wearable cameras aren't evil.

Now put it on a pole and call it Flock, then it's evi-- no wait, that's a problem with the camera's user too, isn't it?

More like 99.99%. Maybe need some more nines in there. Large C codebases without regular critical CVEs are basically nonexistent.

What bankruptcy-prevention actions are they asking for?

You're right: civilian nuclear programmes are not cost effective compared with renewables. But, there's also the military aspect to this too. Military nuclear benefits by hiding/sharing some of the costs, industrial infrastructure, training, expertise, supply chains, etc with a civilian programme. If there was no civilian nuclear programme, the defence budget would be much bigger to fund things like the nuclear navy.

Is that on top of the 30% federal tax credit?

This is for fun, not "production." If someone hacks up something and got to play with pretty lights for 10 minutes before getting bored and building something else, that's great. And if they learned any engineering, that's a bonus. It's ok to stack your legos however the fuck you want to. I don't fucking care if a kid in 1982 did the "wrong" thing on his TI-99/4A or VIC-20. Been there, done that, got a 40-something year long career out of it despite my youthful unorthodox amateur whims.

Use python on quasi-embedded systems all you want to. Whatever figuratively gets you off your ass, is a good thing.

The UK is at 46% renewables, and that number is increasing rapidly. Why hasn't it collapsed yet?
https://ourworldindata.org/gra...

Spain is at 56%:
https://ourworldindata.org/gra...

Iceland is at 100% renewables:
https://ourworldindata.org/gra...

You fail.

"The Trump administration's Department of Energy wants to create 'campuses' in several states to store waste,"

Given the high standards this administration sets for contractors, I'm sure there's no reason to ask more questions.