What will happen at some point is that sites that require age verification will require some kind of verifiable token generate by the OS-level age verification. Rather than the myriad proliferating independent age verfication. But it's a legislative ratchet that is unlikely to move in the opposite direction. If you don't want OS level age verification, then likely you'll be confined to the part of the internet that doesn't require age verification.

I was hoping at the bottom of the article it would say that Professor Utonium accidentally added Chemical X.

The fines should be proportional to actual damage caused (ie: 100% coverage of any interest on loans, any extra spending the person needed to do in consequence, loss of compound interest, damage to credit rating along with any additional spending this resulted in, and any medical costs that can reasonably be attributed to stress/anxiety). It would be difficult to get an exact figure per person, but a rough estimate of probable actual damage would be sufficient. Add that to the total direct loss - not the money that went through any individual involved, and THEN double that total. This becomes the minimum, not the maximum. You then allow the jury to factor in emotional costs on top of that.

In such cases as this, the statutary upper limit on fines should not apply. SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that laws and the Constitution can have reasonable exceptions and this would seem to qualify.

If a person has died in the meantime, where the death certificate indicates a cause of death that is medically associated with anxiety or depression, each person invovled should also be charged with manslaughter per such case.

Is that just directly or does it include data that can be purchased through third-part brokers? 'Cause some agencies seem to be using the latter.

As opposed to half-assed improvements? Obviously updates/patches pushed to end-users should be "production ready". It's sad that it had to be specifically stated that Microsoft actually worked on these. I imagine people will remain dubious anyway.

So much better than those updates designed to do the opposite. /s

Ironic? Yes. Surprising? No.

Maybe Amazon can use drones to deliver things ... -- oh, wait. :-)

From TFS:

Since the issue seems to be attorneys not reviewing/checking their sources, I suggest the punishment be along those lines. Perhaps a week of extensively fact-checking *everything* the President says, for each offense.

I suggest:

First offence: Have to watch CSPAN for 5 hours a day, for a week, without sleeping through it - evidence to be provided in court

Second offence: Have to sing Miley Cyrus songs and Baby Shark on TikTok - sober

Third offence: License to practice and all memberships of country clubs and golf courses revoked

Makes me think of this from Galaxy Quest: :-)

Maybe they're using Trump 2024 election logic where winning the popular vote by (literally) 1.47% is a "landslide" and a mandate.

Or Outlook's location check.

Tuesdays and Thursdays will be Leg days. :-)

Cool. How many expendables will fit? :-)

You don't seem to understand the word "similar".