We do have limits to speech. Already.

Limits to causal reactions and effects. You can scream fire all you want, even in a crowded theater. The moment it causes panic and an event that causes death or injury, that no longer is free speech.

Threatening people's life and limb is banned.

Slander and Libel

Some of these limits are criminal (causing actual harm) while others require civil court actions (Libel). And even there, there are limits in favor of Liberty.

In your example, we have additional protections for children/minors who are unable to discern ill intents of adults taking advantage.

If someone is willfully and willingly lying to deceive that can be both criminal or civil (or both) in nature. We already have laws in place for that. But the ultimate issue here is that you cannot distinguish between the speech "there is a puppy lost" and the kidnapping that follows.

Freedom to express yourself is utmost sacred in our tradition of liberty. BUT you are not free from the consequences, real or imagined. It also means that government controls on speech are few and far between, and are usually tied to courts for adjudication. We still have Time Place and Manner restrictions as much as I think even THOSE are abused at times (e.g. can't play loudspeakers at 3AM)

As a free speech absolutist myself, I don't care if people are so stupid that they believe everything they're being told. The only problem I have is there are people believe the lies and vote.

See my signature for more info. Democracy is the collective stupidity of all of us, telling the rest of us how we ought to be ruled. -

COBOL is easy.

Easy to learn
Easy to program with
Easy to read.

It is very simple. Which is both a strength and its biggest weakness.

The problem is that programs written are NOT structured except the way the guy who wrote the code thought it should be ... if he even thought about it at all.

I was once upon a time hired to convert a COBOL programmed system into an SQL database. The example I use is there was this one proceedure done in COBOL ( take data, modify it this way, output accordingly), literally the same process, but it wasn't a procedure it was coded three different ways. The inputs and outputs should have been the same, they were .... most of the time. And that is why there was this other bit of code checking outputs over there ---->

Also written different ways.

Diarrhea code. They never did get it migrated. The guys who wrote it died and the system died with him. The real fix would have been to have a clean room implementation with three teams, the COBOL team, the API team and the SQL team. But it was a mom and pop shop, and didn't have the funds available which is why the system died when the last of the COBOL coders died.

So, you're equating Sporting engines (aka RACING) with CAFE standards compliant transportation for a mom and her two kids?

And you tell me to piss off?

LOL.

No.

You're not wrong, but you are.

The laws ARE garbage. If a test can be rigged, it will be. This is the nature of how things are. China WILL win, if we continue to regulate ourselves out of competition.

The US has a similar problem, we have CAFE standards that were SUPPOSED to require car manufacturers to increase efficiencies to IMPOSSIBLE levels. The problem is, those rules only applied to "cars". Almost all US car manufacturers have stopped making cars, and the ones they are building are largely big muscle cars, and not fuel efficient ones. Instead, they are building SUVs that aren't "cars" but are classed as "trucks" and exempt, and a few Hybrids that really nobody actually wants.

The law of unintended consequences is undefeated

"There ought to be a law"

Every bad law starts out with "good intentions" as if that was enough. Results don't matter, only the intent. Results can be horrible but if you oppose it, "You want bad things to happen" and are

Stops Signs are red. Stop Lights are red. Cameras generate revenue. Unfortunately the hidden cost of red light cameras are that there are MORE problems and aren't "orderly".

I did a very shitty job in my post. And for that I'm sorry.

"Society" doesn't care about anyone in particular, only in perhaps ... maybe .. possibly .. in the most generic sense there is. But that is debatable because we'll just run the playbook of ________(Insert Sob Story Here).

Society isn't care about anyone, and anyone trying to pretend it does, or even should, is selling you something worthless. It is literally impossible for everyone to care about everyone else equally. That is why we have families, tribes, communities and the like. Lets tear those apart and see how society thrives (sarcasm)

You have been fined for running that red light by a camera operated by "not a government" tech company on behalf of said government, with only money flowing to the city and very low oversight. Because it is AI.

I was speaking along these lines. Not the Social Media sites themselves.

But it doesn't matter, because "there ought to be a law" rules people these days.

Unless you're penalizing the CONSUMER, this has zero chance of having any real effect.

"There ought to be a law" - Every Karen Ever

Notions of "noon" is a relic of a preindustrial lifestyle.

Make all the clocks world wide set to UTC.

We are a GLOBAL economy that is based on information. Call it Post Industrial. Information moves at the speed of light.

Pretending we Americans live in a giant castle surrounded by a huge Moat (aka Oceans) isn't going to protect us from what is happening elsewhere. Offshoring is going to kill our economy.

We have a dying generation who still sees the economy as post WWII, because that is the world we grew up in (Last of the boomers here).

We had better get used to it. Build things better, faster, cheaper.

Is it harmless? That's an opinion. Not one I share either.

Is the change an overreaction? That's also an opinion. My answer is, it is no more an "over reaction" than people clammoring for the change in the first place is .

Why is it NOT an overreaction when a feather needs to be changed because someone somewhere was offended, and removing it offends someone else? Who's Offense Matters MORE? Is it offensive or is it honoring? That is the real question and who gets to decide?

And Who gets to decide who decides? Thats the real problem.