Sure, I signed on to give the phone company access to my location, as that is required for the functionality of the phone. I did NOT give consent to that information being sold to advertisers ("I saw you visited McDonald's last week! Here's a coupon!"), insurance companies ("I saw you enjoyed skiing, we're going to raise your rates because you are at elevated risk of injury!"), law enforcement ("What were you doing near the scene of the crime?"), my spouse ("Why are you hanging around at HER house?"), or anyone else who might be interested.

Does my desire for privacy from these various groups mean I have "something to hide?" Or does it just mean I expect privacy and want to live my life without being exploited and hassled simply for having a phone?

Companies are not required to do *thing* just because it produces profit, especially when that *thing* will destroy their ability to sell that product in the future or, say, live on this planet.

It seems to me if you are fighting enemies on the spiral stairs inside the castle, you've mostly already lost the battle.

So you'd be okay with Russia completely taking control of Ukraine? And if Putin decides he wants Poland next, then what? Still okay?

Just be honest, you are okay with Russia taking Ukraine by force because you want the U.S. to be able to take what its psychopathic leader wants to take by force. Trump's support for Ukraine has been so lukewarm it is obvious he wants to divide up the world to be controlled by four superpowers - the U.S., the EU, Russia, and China. He's mostly kept the U.S. out of Ukraine because he wants Russia to stay out of Venezuela and Cuba.

And farmers and exporters are best served by peace, not aggression and war.

Um. Continue running MacOS 26?

By global standards, even a person in the U.S. at the median income and median wealth would be incredibly wealthy.

So, what are YOU doing to decrease climate change?

OR:

Multiple companies continue to sell bigger and heavier ICE vehicles at a high profit, making them bigger and bigger and filling them with privacy-invading tracking and other "technology" tools, all while knowing their product is dramatically increasing the rate of climate change and will cause future droughts, famines, crop failures, and the deaths of tens of millions of people. They demand subsidies for the fuel that runs their products and fight hard to prevent any competitors from entering the market and against any regulations that might decrease the emissions of their products or make them less damaging to the planet.

And these companies are the *good guys* in your view?

then so can any other company or entity or government.

To most of us nerds, we don't use social media anyway, so who cares. But this is essentially proof of concept to show how it can (is) be done by other entities that we can't avoid. Like credit bureaus. Governments. Spy agencies. Data brokers. Hackers.

This needs to be regulated and something you can block at the personal level across all devices and should be opt-out by default.

Kettle: Pot.

The standard of care is already quite clear given her symptoms. This was a systematic failure of everyone in the care team. Someone(s) should probably lose their medical licenses. Frankly, robots and computers will likely make things worse rather than better, as people will rely on them too much to catch mistakes which, by that point, is too late.

And beaches, don't forget beaches, they use huge amounts of water!

The issue is that these wealthy companies want to exploit local water sources, often in lower-income communities that already struggle to produce enough clean, inexpensive water for the people who already live there. There are no new golf courses being built (acres of courses in the U.S. is relatively stable), and acres of almond trees have gone down considerably in the last few years. So try proposing a new golf course or almond farm in the same community that is opposed to water-hogging data warehouses, and I think you'll find the same response -> don't exploit us for our water!

Yes, AI can change itself without any input from humans. But AI will ALWAYS need humans to tell AI whether that change is actually an improvement. AI is a tool to serve humans, and its success should be measured in how well it serves humans. AI-led changes that do not result in benefits for humans are essentially errors or a defect; therefore any improvements to AI will require human input. Otherwise it's just "changes."

New Jersey has a better (lower) crime rate than either of these states. But I don't think Samsung is moving its headquarters because of crime rates.

If it were about corporate tax rate, they'd move to South Dakota or Wyoming (0% corporate tax rate), although I will point out many companies hardly pay anything in corporate taxes (https://itep.org/88-profitable-corporations-paid-zero-income-tax-in-2025/) and usually even less in state taxes.

If it were about quality of life, they'd move to the Netherlands or maybe Denmark.

But the truth is it is likely just a cost-saving measure as Samsung already had way more office space in Texas than it ever did in NJ, and will probably use the move as a way to rid itself of NJ-based employees who refuse to move to Texas.

I would argue Luke was never a Marty Stu - he was impatient, whiny, in love with his sister, made dumb choices (but lucked out of them or was saved by a friend). Rey is much more of a Mary Sue, in that she doesn't even require training by Yoda to become a master with the force.

But there could have been a much more interesting arc to Luke's story movies 7-9 could have explored that did not require a rehash. Once the head of the Empire is defeated, it's not really 'over;' there's still many leaders who are loyal, many units, etc. and the right to freedom isn't one by one dramatic battle, it takes work every day. That could have been a much more interesting series of movies than what we got.