It's only cheaper if you do not get sued for slandering an innocent person that your camera falsely reported tot he police.

Basically, what is going on here is companies shifting risk from themselves to their customers.

Does that sound to you like a good idea? To be so afraid of your customers stealing that you treat them with massive disrespect?

#1) After the Maine Candidate dropped out, the chances of the DNC taking Maine rose above what it was before.

#2) I said impeached again, not removed from office. The Dems will do it if they get 51% if only to make it harder for him to continue to destroy the country.

#3) Plattner was a bad Democrat candidate in part because he did the same things the Republicans candidate do and stay in office. Trump himself has been convicted of lying to the US government not to mention paying large sums of money (> 1 million each time) because he:
a) Refused to rent apartments to black people.
b) Refusing to let black Casino Dealers work in the much better paying high net worth games
c) raped women
d) Raped 13 year old girls at his friend Epstein's parties.
e) scammed students out of money for a fake real estate course.

These are JUST the cases where he had to pay money, not the many other crimes he has been accused of.

How did he win election? He has huge social skills, no ethics, and never ran for lesser office. If you run for lesser office you do not get immunity and the higher people in the party kick you out when they find out about your crimes. But he never ran for anything less than Presidency so he was never properly vetted until after he won and acquired a bunch of loyal idiots.

1) The cops in Minneapolis appear to have the reputation for being psychotic morons. Suspects are not always guilty, as shown in this case and Car theft is most often kids joy riding (75%). Yes, 25% of the time it is organized crime (to steal a car for anything more than a joy ride you need good connections to large organizations to either chop it up or ship it out of the country). It is totally unreasonable to draw a gun on people joy riding.

2) The cops appear to be illiterate. The theft report said 34 DTM. While the flock cameras did not see it was 34 10 DTM, the cops SHOULD have seen the 34 10 DTM and realized something was off before they stopped the vehicle They should still have questioned them, but should have realized before hand that the license plate was not identical to the theft report and gone in more subtely.

3) Flock is incompetent and should be banned.

I just do not understand how so many people are so freakin' STUPID.

They have abandoned their privacy, thinking nobody cares about them. But it has gotten so cheap to spy on people that you can spy on everyone, aggregate the data and suddenly everybody cares about the data.

Every doorbell camera like this should come with a large warning (bigger than the doorbell camera) that says:

"Thieves WILL access this camera and use it to figure out when you are on vacation. Your ex boyfriend will access it and see who you are dating. Connecting this device to the internet is a dumbass thing to do and definitely NOT secure."

That would have to be approved by the courts. It could go either way.

If you want to stop AI Cheating, turn the classroom into a faraday cage and all work is done there.

Given the US current economy and the GOP prospects for the coming election, the absolute worst thing Trump could do for the GOP is to enact new economic measures.

If he messes up enough he will be impeached again. Just takes a few more democrats in the senate.

They either do not understand the idea of a 'fair market' or hate it so much. They know they can't do the repairs cheap enough or fast enough to earn their customer's continued service. So they try to lock in the repair costs.

Then they lie about in court.

I would not worry about what happens in 2038, there is a good chance we will get better consumer production laws starting 2 years from now.

There a lot of people that want to work less than the standard 8 hour+ routine. Parents often it very difficult to arrange their child's schedule to fit their work schedule.
Some less-able people that can work 4 hours a day but really need a break after that. People trying to get a degree part time.

Nope. It does not say that your best bet is to learn as a child. In fact I would say that the later learning not working points the real effect:

Selection for people with better brains.

It strongly implies that learning languages does nothing, but that those lucky enough to be born into a household where learning languages as a child is common or easier are also lucky enough to have less deterioration later in life.

This implies that good parents that provide a stable home life when the child is young, give good nutrition, establish strong learning habits end up having less deterioration.

To see if the learning languages had any effect your would most likely need siblings studies where one child learned two+ languages and the other learned only one.

That data would indicate what you and the reporters are implying, but it does not exist in this study.

One of the many problems in science is the mistaken belief that correlation = causation.

That is, people the fact that more men then women are CEO's does not indicate men are better at business, instead it indicates that men are favored by the people that select CEOs.

Here are several other possible explanations for the survey results:

1) Intelligent people are both more likely to learn multiple languages and more likely to age better because they take better care of their brain, or it could be that the same trait that makes them smarter also protects their brain. I.E. Smarter people get less brain deterioration and smarter people learn more languages.

2) The brain's very first bits of degradation occurs at a very young age (before 30) and that same degradation makes learning new languages unpleasant and/or more difficult. I.E. later brain deterioration prevents you from learning languages at an early age.

I am not saying these are true, I am saying the idea deciding to learn a language will protect your brain is NOT supported by the data, at least not anymore than my 2 suggestions.

I hope you are being sarcastic. it was 30% of children off the Social Media, NOT 30% have a positive effect. Children off social media was the method, not the reason for the law.

The desired positive effect was to protect the children from 'cyberbullying', and to disrupt child pornography.

This article had no results listed. They did not mention any reduction in cyber bullying nor any reduction in child pornography.

Interesting hypothesis (not theory, theory = proven), lets test it out.
Internet search results: ( https://streamlinedai.app/blog... )
2% of people have a PHD.

Hm, that sounds low, not high. Especially as PHDs are not just for academia.
Internets search results ( https://academiainsider.com/wh... )
20% of people with a PHD stay in Academia.

Sorry, the real world seems to disprove your hypothesis. PhD's are not 'too common', nor do they stay in Academia. They go out into the real world and use their knowledge to change the world. Hopefully for the better.

Surprise surprise.

The foolish attempt to save the children by taking away everyone's privacy and the children's freedom is thwarted by the children subverting their laws.

If you want to save the children, do not try to save them, instead protect us ALL by changing the algorithms to push people toward truth rather than the shocking.