The federal government has always (for at least several decades) used the threat of removing federal funding to force states to do things that they don't want to do. This is nothing new, and is not, as this summary implies, setting a dangerous precedent.

The difference is that normally, this is used to do things that add standards intended to make things better/safer for the general public or serve some legitimate public need.

This is being done to remove standards intended to protect the general public. As a general rule, states have always been allowed to have stricter laws than the federal government, just not more lax laws. Using the threat of removing federal funding to take away laws intended to protect the public's rights, reduce competition among content providers, and push the Internet more and more towards a content monopoly is doing the opposite of that.

It's not the federal government using the threat of withdrawing funding to push its agenda that is bad. It is the agenda itself that is bad. It is fundamentally antithetical to the rule of law, fundamentally contrary to the regulatory powers required to maintain a functioning capitalist system, and fundamentally contrary to the public interest. It is putting greedy corporations ahead of the American people.

Additionally, the executive branch taking such an action without authorization from Congress is also bad. The long history of doing this has, to my knowledge, been limited to the executive branch acting on laws passed by Congress that give them the authority to withhold funds for specific non-compliance reasons. Doing so in the absence of such laws is likely a violation of the separation of powers.

But unfortunately, the current administration has a long history of violating that separation of powers, doing various illegal acts, knowing full well that it will take months for the courts to strike down those acts, and that the damage will have been done by then, and using the threat of such illegal executive orders as a way to extort concessions out of states, government agencies, corporations, nonprofits, and individuals. And that right there — the repeated willful commission of unconstitutional acts for borderline felonious purposes — is a fundamental abrogation of their oath of office.

So the way I see it, there are only three ways to fix the problem:

A. Pass laws clarifying that Congress has exclusive power of the purse, and that the executive branch shall not retract funding to any state, any agency, or any individual for any reason unless the right to retract funding for that specific reason is explicitly codified in the relevant law as an executive power, and that this rule shall apply to all government agencies, without exception, superseding all previously assumed authority, and providing criminal liability for anyone acting in contravention of this law, with no statute of limitations. That way, federal agency heads who act on such executive orders will no longer be protected by any assumption of legality or constitutionality, and will risk future criminal charges if they act on an executive order that violates the separation of powers in this way.

B. Remove the people who are pushing this agenda, whether through the ballot box, through impeachment, or both.

C. Do both A and B.

It would be a LOT better off if the war had gone to plan and the IRGC had been toppled quickly. But wars rarely go to plan, and there is often short term pain as the war is fought.

Britain and France declared war on Germany in September 1939, a year later in 1940 you could have legitimately asked the same question - how is the world better off now than it was before? It was much worse for Britain and France at that point.

Looking back now it's obvious how much better off the world is, but in 1940 many people in occupied paris or bomb ravaged london would have thought differently.

You don't get rid of an entrenched abhorrent regime over night, and the longer they're allowed to exist the stronger and more entrenched they become.

Well first gen tech might not work very well, but the idea is good and will be refined over time.

It could also just be that this guy isn't familiar with how to use the functionality of the glasses yet.

It being pitch black would be beneficial to someone who was blind, it would not only level the playing field but actually tilt it in their favor as they would have much more experience operating without sight.

Why? The camera is not hidden, the meta glasses are branded and widely advertised, Most will recognize the meta glasses too or people wouldn't even be talking about it.

You don't need a camera to transcribe speech. They would be more useful for blind people whereby the camera takes a picture of what's in front of you and describes it audibly.

You can't be surreptitious with a well known, branded camera containing device attached to your face.

With a cellphone? Sure you can. You hold it in your hand to read something on the screen - which way are the (front and back) lenses facing? How is anyone to know wether you're recording video vs innocently reading something?
You hold it to your ear to have a call, the rear lens is facing away from you - pointing at what?
You put it in your shirt pocket, modern phones are big enough that the lens will protrude out of the top so it can see infront of you just as well as glasses could. Is anyone going to notice this and question if the phone in your pocket is actively recording?
You drop your phone on the floor, at least one of the lenses is facing upwards - looking up someone's skirt?
There have been lots of cases of perverts using phones to record under people's skirts on public escalators too...

In Japan locally sold phones don't let you turn off the shutter sound when you take a photo, but in other countries they do. And even in Japan this doesn't apply to video.

And what's to stop these perverts doing the same thing with hidden cameras, phones, CCTV etc?

If someone approached you with a large video camera on their shoulder and started asking you questions, you'd automatically assume you were being recorded right?
If someone approached you with a phone camera raised up so that the lens is pointing at you, you'd also automatically assume you were being recorded?

If you didn't want to be recorded in these situations, you'd refuse to talk to this person until they turned the camera off, right?

So if someone approaches you wearing a known brand/model of camera equipped glasses, why would you assume that they are not recording?
If you don't want to be recorded, why wouldn't you demand that the wearer remove the glasses and put them away?

There is nothing covert about a pair of branded and well publicized glasses stuck on the front of someone's face. You can see what they are, you know what they are capable of. Someone with a concealed camera is much more dangerous, and tiny concealed cameras have existed for a long time.

How exactly does wearing a pair of branded and recognizable glasses which are known to contain a camera conceal the fact that you could be recording video?

That's like having a traditional video camera on your shoulder, or pretty much any smartphone in your hand - everyone knows what it is, everyone knows it can record video.

How about a pervert who isn't wearing glasses and isn't carrying a phone, but has a hidden buttonhole camera?

Exactly, a pervert is NOT going to use these glasses.

They are a well known product, and they are openly visible when you're wearing them on your face. Anyone who can see you knows immediately that you are wearing smart glasses with an integrated camera.

Anything the glasses could record would also be seen by the wearer's eyes. With cellphones perverts have been known to hold the cellphones at low angles in order to intentionally see up someone's skirt for example - this wouldn't happen with glasses.

The wearer is also present when glasses are being used, whereas a pervert would put a hidden camera somewhere and then leave the area in the hope that the victim will unknowingly expose themselves to the camera. Noone is going to unknowingly expose themselves to someone who is physically present wether they're wearing glasses or not.

A modern phone is much more useful to a pervert than a pair of glasses with a camera.

What exactly makes Meta's glasses "creepy"?
They are a well known product with a camera. It's no different from walking around carrying a modern phone. Both have cameras in them, the fact one is attached to your head and the other typically held in a hand is really the only difference.

Many people carry phones in shirt pockets where the lens is above the pocket. These cameras could easily be recording and you'd have no way to know. A phone held in the hand could also be recording, are you always paying attention to what direction the lenses are pointing and if there's a cover over them? Many phones have both front and back lenses too, so they could be recording in either direction.

If someone is going to be a pervert they are not going to attach a well known and easily recognizable camera to their face, that's really no different than having a traditional video camera on their shoulder. It's extremely obvious that they have a camera.
A pervert is going to use hidden cameras that are NOT contained within well known camera equipped devices. They will use buttonhole cameras, pen cameras, and all the other various concealed cameras that have existed since long before Meta offered glasses.

Engineers need to remember that time exists.

You have three months to teach a teen how to control a robot with a microcontroller.

OK, how much of that do you budget to CS and assembly?

Month 1: Architecture and data structures? You have 18 40 minute periods and maybe homework assignments.

Half of the class won't even gain mastery in that time. By time your class is over they will still be having memory management problems.

So then you've failed to achieve the goal.

There are engineers who remember that time exists and for the rest we have engineering managers. Not ideal, just how it is.

To be sure engineering schools are doing a bad job at teaching reality. Even in a dx/dr environment, it's so weird.

The inherent flaw of democracy.
Dealing with something in advance is the best solution, but that would be expensive and unpopular costing them votes so it doesn't happen. Instead it's left so it becomes the next guy's problem.
Only if something blows up and becomes an immediate emergency will they try to do anything about it.

Around 2029 we'll see that a ride is available for $16 or $31 with a driver.

Rider's choice. I'll guess it goes about 80/20.

He seems like a real scumbag but it's worth keeping in mind that the people who told us that have a massive incentive to pin their crimes on a scapegoat.

Since we pretty much know that FTX was the #1 donor to a party's political action committee with money laundered through Ukraine, he would have been smarter to wait for that conflict to conclude.

The people who benefited from the crime also prosecuted him which is never reliable.

It might not be FedSlop but unless it is proven that both parties didn't benefit we shouldn't trust this government either.

We do know that Ladybug Graham got $18M straight into his bank account from Ukraine so there is certainly smoke.

It's only since a dead man can't sue for libel that people are willing to print that nugget now.