Which one? .gov or .com?

Kids clearly learned this sort of behavior from cartoons. We must BAN CARTOONS! Won't someone think of the children?

No, I'm not serious, and the fact that I'm having to say that tells you pretty much everything you need to know about how utterly stupid all of this is becoming.

This.

Whenever a politician claims that something is "to protect the children", you can be 100%, absolutely certain that it is not about the children.

Oh, that's trivial: a) it's made-up nonsense, b) it tells people how to live their lives and c) it's been around for so long that people forgot that it's made-up nonsense.

None of that or the rest of your answer has anything to do with the point I was making: That "accepted as a religion in the USA" isn't much of an argument. If people can get Jedi accepted as a religion, it just proves how meaningless all of that is. Other countries have correctly identified Scientology as a pyramid scheme and a scam.

The fact that other religions would qualify for that as well doesn't make it any less true.

That's sort of what Google does now. You try to search, it gives you some AI-generated overview of the topic before providing links. It's occasionally handy but most often infuriating.

If the U.S. can do that, they can put drones in the air and create a Starlink-based swarm network providing free Wi-Fi to everyone, replacing the hardware as it gets shot down. Nobody has to have the Starlink hardware if it is a few hundred feet up — complete anonymity and complete destruction of the government's Internet blackout.

But corporations are not people. Corporations exist at the mercy and whims of the state. And corporations have to tell who they paid money and for what.

If you make it illegal for corporations to pay ransoms to the tune of "If you get caught, your corporate charter is revoked," it won't make more people criminals; it will make it nearly impossible for corporations to pay ransoms without the corporation ceasing to exist, which would make paying the ransom entirely moot.

But for it to work, the cost of getting caught and the odds of getting caught would both have to be high enough to exceed the cost of throwing out all the affected equipment and rebuilding from off-site backups (or starting over from scratch). Otherwise, they'll just pay the ransom.

You mean like... cellular signals? :-)

Yeah, but isn't the bar for that ridiculously low in the US? Like the Jedi "religion" being tax-exempt on religious grounds? And there's no discussion that that one is based purely on fiction.

No, I did not. These are features that exist for my convenience, not as mass surveillance tools. The government is abusing them.

Yes, if you have control of the cell towers. Or run an IMSI catcher. But the technological solution applied is not the question. The question is if we want someone as untrustworthy as our governments to be able to constantly track us.

The fact that you personally maybe don't care doesn't give you the right to opt-in all of us who might care. The problem is that once the technology exists, it will be abused. It already is. If we explicitly allow it, abuse will run rampant. We already have examples of cops using surveillance tech to spy on their spouses, or to stalk that cute girl from the bar. We have tons of examples of surveillance permissions granted for one purpose being used for another one. When the government wants these laws it's always to find child abusers and terrorists. But that is never what they actually have in mind.

It can't, that's just "synergy", the idea that one powerful brand can boost another. In reality it just causes confusion and incorrect assumptions.

Car manufacturer CEOs have to eat. Do you hate car manufacturer CEOs? :-D

Not legally. Class 3 is already capped at 28 MPH. We don't need a new law to prevent them from going highway speeds. The existing laws already do.

The usual way of doing that is to say, "But those $200k jobs are Software Engineer III. We're hiring for Programmer I".

Oh, sorry, that's not what I meant. I wasn't saying that homeless people live in their cars and occupy parking places in housing complexes; they usually occupy street parking.

What I meant is that if you're trying to build low-income housing to accommodate the extremely poor and/or homeless, you shouldn't assume that they won't have to have parking places for their cars.

Anyone with a low-income job is probably *more* likely to require a car to get to a job far away than someone with a higher income (who is more likely to live close and work close to transit, is more likely to be able to afford an Uber, is more likely to have shuttle service from their employer, etc.).

And most short-term homeless (because of joblessness, rather than chronic problems like addiction or psychological problems) do have cars. (Whether they have valid insurance and tags may be a different question, but those cars don't just cease to exist.)