Yes. The claims they want less recidivism are simply lies. It is known how to get these rates down. It is well-known that positive reinforcement works a lot better than negative. It is known that making it easy for people to reintegrate into society, most will go for it. But they want to be "tough on crime". That is denial of reality and that never gives you good outcomes.

On the plus-side, large prison populations are good for keeping our citizens in fear and laws that criminalize everything and anything allows you to get rid of inconvenient people easily. Of course, the rich and powerful almost never have any of those enforced against them, no matter what despicable and repulsive things they do.

Indeed. As is creating criminals. Hence school-to-prison pipelines and other utter evil.

And in the Soviet Union everybody knew many of these were not real criminals ...

Indeed. But the religious fundamentalists want people to be damned forever (!) and hence that is the prevalent sentiment in the US. Guess what, people that get no chance to reintegrate into society do not do so. Also makes for a nice "us vs. them" world-view, something the fundamentalists absolutely love.

The potential is there, but I do not think it will happen. Respective research would find out things that are massively unwanted by the rich and powerful. Just think about research into the mindset of malignant narcissists and you should immediately see what I mean. Or the (very solid) results that conservatives are dumber than liberals. Or that most people cannot fact-check. Or the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Bottom line is that we already know a lot, it is just not used because society and the leaders it choses are not rational. Expanding that knowledge is not desired by too many people.

I do not think there are mysterious cases. There are just some where people chose not to cooperate enough for us to make a determination and that is their right.

Also note that there are quite a few "too important to jail" cases, see, for example some prominent stock scammers or rapists and child abusers or murderers/war criminals. These cases are probably the worst, because they give not-smart people the impression that you can get away with it. And hence overall ethics decline.

Your problem starts here. Right to privacy is a human right, and these were established as response to the 3rd Reich catastrophe. One characteristic is that you cannot lose a human right, regardless of what you do. It can be temporarily restricted if another thing has priority, but it cannot be removed. Hence people like you are into violating human rights and as soon as that starts to be a general sentiment, a state/group/organization is on a very dark path. Yes, you may be able to get some statistic to look better this way. But you have lost something far more valuable.

I am not salty. I just run all my Linux systems without the systemd trash. Has saved me from having to do emergency patches several times now.

A PAC with $5m hoping to raise $15m isn't even close to SuperPAC territory. It's like claiming that somebody who can afford a Ford Mustang is rich.

Let me translate that into regular English for you. The purpose is to pay a fat salary to the people running it.
They're not trying to achieve anything. They're just trying to be a "political home" for people willing to part with their money.

You say there "is" a huge reduction in electricity needed.

However, the words, "is currently working to commercialize this tech" means we, and they, have no idea yet what the energy savings actually will be, if there are any. There may be. There may not be. And if it's more expensive, which remains possible, it doesn't even matter.

Well, if the battery is 3d printed to fill the chassis most of the failure states result in a 10,000 degree fire, so you may not even need to throw it away, it may simply vaporize.

Just an idiot pretending to be know-y.

Emphasis yours, because you're grasping at straws. You didn't even comprehend the details you're arguing over.

Hey moron, it is required if the notice wasn't conspicuous. You were almost there; you got as far as reading the words about conspicuous notice, but then you fell right on your face and said:

No. A checkbox means nothing . It's the same to have a checkbox, or not even disclose it at all. It either has to be conspicuous, or you have to get express consent. A checkbox is the furthest thing from being conspicuous. And a checkbox with details behind a link?! That doesn't even get placed on the scale; there's no argument possible under this law that linked terms are a conspicuous notice. That's the sort of nonsense that can get the lawyer fined for insulting the judge.

A Lisp Programmer, or a German or a Roman.

On the other hand, this is a great way to fish out the few bad ones. If you can't control a temptation to use power for personal gain, you shouldn't be a police officer.

This provides both opportunity, and also hard evidence admissible in court if someone takes it.

I.e. cop with tendencies to stalk would use other means to stalk that are less traceable. This reveals them.

The silly things that happened in the last decades is:
- decline in local capabilities
- don't build, buy cheap on the world market
- world market (China / Venezuela) reacts and supplies the market
- cry because some self invented enemy controls the world market
- invent lies and blame them for slavery and other absurd things, like pollution
- then invade and steal what you can ... worked in Venezuela, did not work in Iran

And: everyone involved knew the dates and could buy shares or options or make future trade deals to profit from it.

USA is a kleptocracy, last 50 years they stole from their own population, and since Iraq and Afghanistan they openly invade other countries and plunder the gold and the museums.