mcmcmc

It’s really disturbing to me because sports are one category of entertainment that is supposed to be family friendly and accessible to kids. They look up to pro athletes as heroes and all the gambling ads are directly being shown to children. It shouldn’t be legal to advertise age restricted products and services to kids, even if they’re not the “intended” target. They’re still being groomed to accept gambling as cool and normal. Gambling, alcohol, all those ads should be subject to the same safe harbor restrictions as sexual content. Ban the ads from stadiums and jerseys too.

Sorry but Sunday blue laws are religious discrimination. It’s just a day and businesses shouldn’t be restricted by a single religious sect. Gambling and substance abuse are actual public health issues.

CUDA is a lock-in moat, the infrastructure needed for chip manufacturing is a barrier-to-entry moat. Two different things.

I just don’t understand the drive of these people to keep seeking further power and wealth when they already are richer than most people could ever imagine. Just go enjoy your life.

> Having said that, legal culpability and misalignment are two separate topics that should not be mixed.

Why not? Because that might make some shareholders unhappy?

> Basically without this then online platforms would be responsible for the content they host (publishers) and would have been sued into oblivion before any of them got up and running... especially Facebook with it's beginnings.

I don’t see this as a problem. They could just as easily have changed their business model and invested more heavily in content moderation. Maybe it wouldn’t have been as profitable, but profit is a great motivator to do bad things.

How about you spell it out? Trump blatantly violated the end user agreement and was banned for it, explain how that’s relevant to a situation where a politician’s campaign ads are banned with no reason given

How is that remotely similar? Trump was banned for condoning political violence after losing an election

The better analogy is a jail cell imo. You can control a human and prevent them from doing harm to society by locking them in a cage, depriving them of access to weapons, drugs and alcohol. They can communicate out through controlled and monitored phone lines. OpenAI built their jail cell out of toothpicks, and surprise, the agents broke out. It’s less about forcing them to do specific things than it is about preventing them from doing dangerous things.

Great, we don’t want companies that break the law here in NM

Kids weren’t getting computers, their parents were.

Better, or better for you in particular?

Pretty telling that it kicked off with the ROTC unit after their commander dismissed them from class.

And then the government gets to decide who can lease that prime real estate next to the station? Sure, that won’t have any problems with corruption

The problem is it was never an executive power to begin with. The unitary executive theory pushed by the Heritage Foundation is counter to everything the US was founded on. Decisions from the current SCOTUS are questionable given the conflicts of interest with certain spouses and the endless improper gifts.

It truly boggles the mind how Trump managed to sell tariffs as anything other than a tax on American consumers

I also read it and saw none of the witnesses were fully credible. None of the parties look good. That still doesn’t mean the driver can pull off in an unsafe location.

Maybe not common sense, but if you have a drivers license you should absolutely know it

If you’re a taxi driver you have a duty of care not to dump your passengers on the side of a freeway where pedestrians aren’t allowed. Same with a railroad crossing

Why presume hate?

Depends on who you ask, but typically either defense of the homeland or projecting hard power

That or a hydrogen balloon of financial engineering

That’s how the legal system in the US has always worked though

That’s different from what I said. I think it’s pretty uncommon to receive your last paycheck on your last day. It’s usually the end of the next pay period

Ok? You can treat someone with dignity while also laying them off because they/their department is losing money

It’s still not a new rule though, it’s the old rule, and not even that old. The new part is the violence from masked ICE officers and they’re not even bothering to check visas half the time. It’s a different problem. A two month grace period was always overly generous.

> US utility companies have geo IP + VPN bans

They have phones you can call to cancel service

> What about google accounts etc that's implicitly tied to a US phone number?

That’s a problem between you and Google, not the US government

Agree to disagree. Layoffs have everything to do with the position which the person was hired for. If your position or department is eliminated, whatever value it was providing to the company is no longer worth it in the balance sheet.

As others have pointed out, this grace period did not exist before 2017, and prior administrations have managed to do just fine without building teleportation machines or conducting Trump style raids. If someone is in the process of self deporting and can show they are making good faith efforts to leave, there is no reason to arrest them. But there has to be a line somewhere. Another possibility could be interpreting the end of employment/expiration of the visa as the day your last paycheck is delivered. Two months is crazy though.

I genuinely did. They briefly classified it as “weird” behavior and mentioned that it was “famous” which apparently is only true for the inside circle. I’ve never heard of the incident, and I’d bet 90% of the human population hasn’t either. You are likely privy to more information than me, and I’m not sure it’s fair to assume that I should’ve had the same outside context. I admit I reacted unfairly, but it’s also a tad snarky to post a Google search at someone.