Rich people don’t give poor people stuff, even if it means they get more stuff too. They aren’t rational actors. They have what should be already, and will one day be, classified as a mental illness.

I’m a man and I’m not laughing.

You don’t have to say it, I was already leaving.

There are people here and other places on the internet who can make a difference in enterprise contracts as well. I am part of an AI pilot program to roll out ChatGPT at my company right now. You can be sure that I am actively pointing out that, among other things, OpenAI is being sued by several entities for stealing data when their primary promise to us is “we won’t use your data”. That feedback matters and some of us learn about that stuff from places like this.

I know, the article says specifically “sampled his DNA”. That is not biometrics unless this author has no idea what those words mean.

I understand the context but I like to imagine Bondi thought she was looking at that lady’s internet search history and not her search of the Epstein files. It’s funny to picture Bondi sitting there waiting for her to say something about pedophiles so she could respond “oh yeah, if you’re so concerned about pedophiles why were you Googling this:”

Then reading the first item in that list which seems to say

“New Brazilian just arrived. Sexy and cute. 13 yo”

I can’t say that’s surprising but I have only heard of smart TVs having been confirmed to do that

Sampled his DNA? WTF is that for? Nobody has a DNA lock on their phone.

Same.

Pam Bondi should die in a fire.

Maybe that will help?

Theoretically they wouldn’t have internet access if a previous occupant set them up unless one of your neighbors has an unsecured AP. Or maybe I’m misunderstanding you and you’re saying you set them up on your wireless network after you moved in. Still a good move to get rid of them but I wouldn’t be as concerned about them if the only AP they were set up to use was no longer present.

I suppose that’s true but it does seem like it would be more effective to spend the effort tying her failures directly to Trump rather than letting him offer her up as the sacrificial lamb. People seem to think he’s good at delegation and “business stuff” so hammer him with the mistakes his people make and force voters to remember how highly he once spoke of them.

What good is making her resign going to do? Don’t get me wrong, she should be gone, but Trump put her there and she’s doing what he wants her to do. Forcing Trump to swap one stooge for another doesn’t accomplish anything except resetting the “Trump’s AG did something bad” counter, which might actually be useful to him but doesn’t help us at all. Focus on the guy who put this obviously unqualified person in charge of the DOJ.

If you’re gonna game the system that hard just get divorced and keep living together. Remove the uncertainty.

Ah fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.

No SMS or MMS either?

Have you had issues receiving group messages on e/OS? RCS is borked but I figured that would be the case. Not getting group texts is a problem though and I’ve tried every solution I can find but nothing seems to work.

To be fair, parenting is a pretty shitty gig. Expectations are high and support is low. People judge everything you do, especially those who have never done it themselves. Even with good kids its a thankless slog most of the time. God help you if you get a hard one.

I think that any solution in the form of a formal government regulation will be subject to that kind of corruption, and real solutions need to be found elsewhere.

I think that’s a fair statement as it relates to the current US government but I don’t think that’s a valid general philosophy. I agree that our current priority should certainly be to implement a government that can be trusted to regulate things effectively. If that isn’t taken care of first then the rest doesn’t matter. As evidenced by, well, everything happening right now haha. Still, the ultimate goal should be government action on this topic because we cannot solve the problem at an individual level. Some people can have better outcomes than others but there’s no level playing field without government intervention.

Its perfectly relevant to my point, which is that the government is already involved in the sort of behavior we’re discussing. If we accept that preventing societal damage, or promoting social well being, or whatever else you want to call it, is a part of what the government exists to do, then why would something like preventing mega corporations from hijacking the development of children fall outside its purview?

I notice you left education off that list

How is this argument different from “it’s not the governments job to provide healthcare / education / social services”