So let me get this straight. They sold data they shouldn't have for $20 million. They settled for $12.75 million. So they made a profit of $7.25 million. So what exactly is the incentive for them not to do this again? They don't make as much as they want if they get caught, but they still make money. This is how you encourage companies to do this, not discourage them.

My guess is that the issue is the chance of the line being tangled in something. If there are trees around, a gust of wind could easily blow the line (with or without package) into the trees. You also have to leave the package somewhere out in the open as there would be no way to put in on a covered porch.

What are the chances that the robot was being controlled by a human and not AI? There have been a lot of "demos" of AI robots that it turns out is a guy in another room controlling it. If I had to bet money, that is what was happening here as well.

This shows the real issue with AI. It isn't in the AI itself, but the people using it. I don't have an issue with them using AI to try and identify the suspect when they are having a hard time doing so. But you can't just take what AI says and assume it is correct and act on it. AI is a tool and needs to be used as such. When it gives you something, it is up to the people to actually check out what it says and follow up on it. People are using AI as if it is the answer but it is just a tool to try and get to the real answer and that is the part that people are ignoring.

You are putting WAY to much thought into this. Yes, it was not a fancy double blind study, but there are 4 separate files and 4 things they could be assigned to. Anyone with 2 brain cells would listen and assign what they though was the best quality to the original. Then to the one run through the audio cable. Then the banana followed by mud. They fact that at minimum the mud and banana didn't stand out says what you need to know about the quality.

No, it's not. It is only legal for someone with a federal firearms license to manufacture guns, and even then they have to have a serial number. Not sure where to got you information, but it is 100% incorrect.

I have not seen Sassy Justice, but the law does look to apply specifically to "intimate images", which I assume Sassy Justice would not fall under. Also, I assume parody could be used as defense in the case as well.

That is exactly what would happen. This is another Trump idea that sounds good when you say it but anyone who puts any thought into it finds very quickly it is a terrible idea. Everything he says is about getting people to like him. He says something like this so people will say "that will help me, Donald Trump is a good guy and on my side". Meanwhile, if it happens, most of those same people will have their credit cards cancelled or not be able to get a card to begin with. He can then say it is all the banks faults not his. Trump is nothing but optics, once you look past the words and actually at how things works, everything falls apart.

No, they don't need to micromanage, just manage. If your manager doesn't know what you do, what are they managing? They should be in contact with the people they manage and communicating with them about their tasks. There are more options than "stand at desk and watch employee all the time" and "let the employees do whatever they want".

I was watching a Twitch stream where Pokimane was addressing her recent visa renewal and some issues travelling back to the US, and she nailed it perfectly. The O1 visa is based upon how much money the US thinks you can make, and they can therefore tax. It's not about artistry or anything like that in the majority of cases, they just want to see you will make money they can collect taxes on. Like most things in the government (especially in this government) it has become entirely transactional.

It's sad to say, but this is part and parcel for the US. The rich want to get every advantage they can, and their money allows them to. So as students with real disabilities get accommodations the rich see it as someone getting something they don't and immediately go about finding a way they can get it to. It doesn't matter that they don't deserve it, they think they deserve it simply because someone else is getting it. And with the US healthcare system, they can always find someone willing to give their kids a diagnosis whether they need it or not because they are willing to pay the price (And can afford to pay the price). This is what the US has become, a plutocracy. The rich get whatever they want because they can afford to buy everything and in the US, everything is for sale.

This is all timed for the midterm elections, which Trump and the rest of the GOP are EXTREMELY interested in. And we all know, Trump is the GOP at this point, so anything that is good for him is seen as good for the GOP.

something something something...democrats give away money to buy votes...something something

No one is really suggesting"at ANY price point". No one thinks renting rooms at 10 dollars is better than nothing, but renting rooms at 100 dollars that normally rent for 200 is better than nothing. And there is nothing stopping you from renting last minute, except the possibility of not getting a room or at least the room you want. If you want to take a chance of not getting a room to save 50 dollars you go right ahead.

I just don't get how Google was found liable and Apple was not. Google had at least alternate store (Amazon) while Apple has had none. Google allowed sideloading so there was (and still is) a way to load apps not in the store while Apple doesn't allow sideloading. You can say Google suppressed the development of alternative app stores, but Apple never even had to suppress because there was simply no way to get them on the device. I am not saying it was wrong to find Google liable, but the fact they have to make changes and Apple continues to have the most locked down device and app store around just boggles my mind.