Assuming it's remotely true (and there's good reason for thinking it isn't), it still means the FBI director was negligent in their choice of personal email provider, that the email provider had incompetent security, and that the government's failure to either have an Internet Czar (the post exists) or to enforce high standards on Internet services are a threat to the security of the nation (since we already know malware can cross airgaps through negligence, the DoD has been hit that way a few times). The FBI director could have copied unknown quantities of malware onto government machines through lax standards, any of which could have delivered classified information over the Internet (we know this because it has also happened to the DoD).

In short, the existence of the hack is a minor concern relative to every single implication that hack has.

Addiction is neurological, not chemical. Addiction is the consequence of the rewards centre of the brain becoming dependent on stimulation and that can be from anything.

Do try to make an effort.

Doesn't have to be a credit card. A class III user digital certificate requires a verification firm be certain of a person's identity through multiple proofs. If an age verification service issued such a certificate, but anonymised the name the certificate was issued to to the user's selected screen name, you now have a digital ID that proves your age and optionally can be used for encryption purposes to ensure your account is only reachable from devices you authorise.

They're still in denial about that. Had one just a couple days ago saying that the gas price increases are just the regular price increase in the spring.

There's a bit of subversion here though: Going by my uncle, social security disability has made it even easier: They automatically reject every application the first time.

I was just reading a story where a woman ended up in jail six months, extradited to North Dakota from Tennessee.
The only evidence it was her was an AI facial recognition match between her social media/driver's license and the video of the actual suspect.
It wasn't until the first court date that the public defender got her financial records showing she was in Tennessee when the crime actually happened.
Then they kicked a southern state person out into ND winter without proper clothing, not even bothering to get her a ride back home.

She lost her house and car due to non-payment because she couldn't pay bills while in jail.

Looking, she'll probably end up with a $2-3M settlement.

https://www.theguardian.com/us...

And those come with warnings, legal penalties on vendors who sell to known addicts or children, legal penalties for abusers, financial penalties to abusers, etc. There are cars which have their own breathalisers.

So, no, society has said that the responsibility is distributed. Which is correct.

It is possible to verify age to the same degree (or better) than any "age verification service" without any sort of privacy invasion.

A six digit UID is not one that could be remotely considered "old".

*goes off grumbling and looks for anyone he can shout at to get off his lawn.

It is legitimate for any service that constitutes a "common carrier" to be free of consequences for what it carries. But Meta do not claim to be a "common carrier", and that changes the nature of the playing field substantially. As soon as a service can inspect messages and moderate, it is no longer eligible to claim that it is not responsible for what it carries.

Your counter-argument holds some merit, but runs into two problems.

First, society deems any service that monitors to be liable. That may well be unreasonable at the volumes involved, but that's irrelevant. Meta chose to monitor, knowing that this made it liable in the eyes of society. There are, of course, good reasons for that - mostly, society is sick and twisted, and criminality is encouraged as a "good thing" and "sticking it to the man". This is a very good reason to monitor. But Meta chose to have an obscenely large customer base (it didn't need to), Meta chose to monitor (it is quite capable of parking itself in a country where this isn't an obligation), and Meta chose to make the service addictive (which is a good way of encouraging criminals onto the scene, as addicts are easy prey).

Second, Meta has known there's been a problem for a very long time (depression and suicides by human moderators is a serious problem Meta has been facing for many years at this point). Meta elected to sweep the problem under the rug and create the illusion of doing something by using AI. If a serivce knows there's a problem but does nothing, and in particular a very cheap form of nothing, then one must consider the possibility said service is not solving said problem because there's more money to be made by having the abusers there than by removing them.

Can one block every criminal action? Probably not, which means that that's the wrong problem to solve. Intelligent, rational, people do not try to solve actually impossible problems. Rather, they change the problems into ones that are quite easy. This is very standard lateral thinking and anyone over the age of 10 who has not been trained in lateral thinking should sue their school for incompetence.

I actually do, it is just that you don't understand the analogy.
Basically, by forgiving the loans, it's the equivalent of the government refunding the money the person was supposed to pay back.
Keep in mind that people sometimes have to declare loan forgiveness as income.

One of the lessons we've had as the Federal, multi-branch nature of the US governmennt has frustrated Trump is that the government may be fucking us over, but it's not doing it in *unison*. It's doing it piecemiel, on the initiative of many interests working against each other, just as the framers intended. The motto on the Great Seal notwithstanding, there are myriad roadblocks to consolidating power in the hands of a single individual. It takes time and repeated failures. This is why the second Trump Adminsitration is worse than the first; they've figured out ways around things like Congressional power of the purse, put more of their henchmen in the judiciary, and normalized Congress lying down and letting the president walk all over them. It's a serious situation, although fortunately Trump isn't long for this world.

Double checking, the "at least double" and "slightly higher capacity factor" might be considered inaccurate.
Onshore vs offshore wind energy: types of wind energy, difference and cost
This site suggests a 43% price increase per MW, but capacity factor goes to 38% from 24%, a 58% increase.

So if we take $3.13M per MW divided by .24 = $13M per capacity factor adjusted continuous MW for onshore.
$4.49M per MW for offshore divided by .38 = $12M per MW adjusted.

Though NREL 2024 has levelized cost of energy for offshore fixed bottom wind turbines being almost 3 times the price as land based.

IRENA has on-shore at around $0.042 per kWh, and offshore around 0.062, around 50% more.

My thinking is thus that a mix of both might be good, as the more install areas we have, the more level the production is likely to be, reducing the need for storage. Plus, would depend on whether or not the power provider has good on-land areas for wind turbines, or good offshore areas. Texas has a lot of good spots on land, while states like New York, or the east coast in general, may not.

Double checking, the "at least double" and "slightly higher capacity factor" might be considered inaccurate enough to downmod.
Onshore vs offshore wind energy: types of wind energy, difference and cost
Suggests a 43% price increase per MW, but capacity factor goes to 38% from 24%, a 58% increase.

So if we take $3.13M per MW divided by .24 = $13M per capacity factor adjusted continuous MW for onshore.
$4.49M per MW for offshore divided by .38 = $12M per MW adjusted.

This makes offshore slightly cheaper.