1. laws and ethics are not the same thing

2. this is irrelevant. This is true for every new technology.

3. The intent of a system is not the purpose of the system. The output of a system is its purpose. If the glasses help deaf people it doesn't matter if they intended it or not.

I understand we can't just come out and say that these glasses are problematic because they automate objectification. This nuance is just too hard for the averate netizen. All of these other side conversations about hidden cameras vs go-pros or whatever are a tangential issue. The problem with them is that they can immediately, with no effort, objectify anything in front of me, without any planning or forethought. Doesn't matter what it is. Women, men, children, pets, a fun night out, a funeral, a protest, motes of dust in a sunbeam shining on a newborn, etc. Everything can be instantly objectified, fixed to media, stored, traded, sold, collected, coveted, copied. It's especially problematic because that is the advertised purpose of it. To let you objectify all of the moments in your life, and everyone and everything around you.

Theres a recording indicator light that turns on when you are recording video.

What about them makes them worse than a go-pro or a body camera like what the cops wear. I don't have any of these devices and I don't understand what the fuss is about.

Follow the money. Its not that complicated.

If monopolies could charge more, they already would.

There will be zero overall impact because price is not set by the producer, its set by the market.

I feel like you are failing to grasp the fact that debt on one balance sheet is an investment that generates passive income on another. They do not want to pay down the debt. The last time they got in over their heads, they did the 90% tax bracket. Before you put hands to keyboard and type something about it not being enough to pay the debt, stop. Think for a moment. A top bracket with a 90% rate sends 50% of the debt service payment back to the treasury because the over half of the holders of the debt are in the top bracket.

I'm not missing the point. All these ACs are. To the folks in charge, debt service is not a problem that needs to be fixed. Debt service is desirable. The money to service the debt will come from the taxable middle class, and via debt service flow to the wealthiest Americans. The holders of the debt will not let the gravy train stop. If there is any danger of a default, literally any at all, the beneficiaries of the system will prop it up any way they can.

We are talking about half a trillion dollars moving from the middle class to the 1% every year. The only way they will ever allow this to stop is at the end of a gun or in a guillotine.

To put this into perspective, It only cost them 0.0007% of the yearly take from this scheme to get Trump into the white house.

Sure, but we live in a society with an access to justice problem. The problem isn't that flock can record my interactions with the public and provide that data to 3rd parties. The problem is that if their data is incorrect in a way that harms me, there is no practical way for me to collect damages.

It matters when 25% of the debt holders are government agencies, and 50% are American citizens. The idea that a congress that is captured by wealthy Americans would stop servicing debt owed to those same wealthy Americans is completely unbelievable. The wealthy Americans that have captured congress want to continue collecting 20% of every tax dollar, and there's basically no chance for that gravy train to stop without their consent. If anything, they want even more gravy on the gravy train. More debt, more debt service, more austerity to pay for it.

Foreign entities hold less than 25% of the debt. Your world view obscures the real winners and losers w/respect to treasury yields and sovereign debt servicing.

lol, yes, people are printing these boxes to recreate the nostalgia of throwing the box away.

Post an article about that if you have evidence to back it up.

I'm not going to acknowledge a guy simply doing what the social contract expects him to do. Those resources would have done a lot more good in the hands of any of the public research institutions he helped to defund. So yea, I still think its a selfish dick move.