No, they won't object to the labels. They will claim that forcing them to put the actual nutritional information is the violation of their free speech. I mean, if they can lie about recycling, why can't they lie about the nutritional content or the ingredients?

I fully understand what they are going for. And I also think it would be a great idea. The issue I see is, who decides what is "trusted". The US is showing that it takes 1 asshole to get power to completely upend everything. When UK Trump gets elected and decides the only "trusted" news sites are the ones that report nice things about him, how do you stop that? At this point, everything has to consider what happens if a bad actor gets power because we can see how bad it can be.

Yeah, this is a load of shit meant to justify hate speech. You can't claim hate speech is OK based on the context. If I say "all white people should die" that is hate speech. It doesn't matter if my family was killed by a white person, it is still hate speech. You example in BC (which I assume is about Barry Neufeld) leaves out a huge amount of the same context you want to talk about. For example, you leave out him associating queer people with child abuse, claiming it was only because he didn't use the proper pronouns.

If that was happening, you might have a case (not a good one, but a case). But you notice what is missing from the article? Reporting that the amount of arrests for threats also went up. The only time they care about threats are when it is by someone they don't like and then they don't care if they are legit or not (see the James Comey prosecution for the "threat" of "86 47"). This is just normalizing threats and hate, not some secret plan to arrest threat makers.

As someone who lives in Ohio, you couldn't be more wrong. While yes, the state is slightly conservative, the GOP has gerrymandered the state to the point they can't lose. While the state votes overall around 57% conservative, the GOP somehow miraculously has a veto proof majority in the state. The concept of democracy has gone out the window here and been replaced with win at all costs.

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.