Whatever you think to do against ICE, do against your local oligarch instead.

Find the richest person within driving distance, and direct your anti-ICE activities at them.

The principal task of a competent manager is, primarily, intervening between incompetent upper managers and actual workers. Replacing the incompetent manager removes the need for the competent one.

I thought “egomaniacal terror” was part of the job description.

Being generous, what you described doesn’t seem unreasonable on its own. My criticism is based on the context of this discussion: using stuffed animals to record children.

You responded to a query about whether using stuffed animals to record children violated children’s privacy with “In my experience, absolutely not.”

Re-reading your points, you seem to be talking about supervising text conversations between kids. That’s a completely separate issue. It can be reasonable to read their conversations, if you have raised this possibility with them, and discussed the purpose of doing so.

But this thread is about IoT Teddy Bears, not text messages. Charitably, I have to assume you are simply off topic, and my only real criticism is that discussing the contents of those messages with anyone but them violates their privacy.

If and when a kid comes across this discussion, I want to make sure they are aware of just how egregious a violation it is to have hidden recording devices in their personal space. In most jurisdictions, recording without the knowledge and consent of at least one party to the conversation is considered “wiretapping” or “eavesdropping”, and is not just a violation of their privacy; it is a criminal act. If anyone - including your parents - has listening or other recording devices installed in your personal space, you should tell teachers, guidance counselors, principals, and similar trusted adults.

And now you’re outing your child’s private conversations to the general public?

What the hell is wrong with you?

This is the cringiest thing I’ve read this week.

Let’s be honest, though: they absolutely could replace management.

They multiplied the “statutory damages” per work times the number of works alleged to have been infringed. The statutory maximum is $150,000 per work.

There are statutory damages of $750 to $30,000 per work assigned to copyright infringement. Under certain circumstances, the courts may lower this amount to $200 per work, or increase it to $150,000.

Plaintiffs multiplied the number of works Anna’s Archive has claimed to have acquired times $150,000 to come up with their number.

Floating wealth cap. The richest person in the country is responsible for everyone’s health care. When their wealth is depleted to #2’s level, #2 starts sharing the load.

Keep adding social programs until everyone is down to #1000’s level.

Don’t fight these ghouls. They are a symptom; oligarchs are the disease.

Register your complaint with the richest person within driving distance.

Yes, it is indeed distinct. “Roommate” does not imply any sort of landlord/tenant relationship. It’s just someone you allow to live with you. This is the route I would choose, unless they demanded tenant status.

The downside is that if they refuse to pay rent at some point in the future, it’s tough to take them to court over it since you don’t have a formal rental agreement.

sublet (original tenant moves out but can return and it doesnt alter tenant/landlord relationship)

FTFY. There is no requirement that the principal tenant actually leave the premises. “Subletting” is where the owner of a property leases to a principal tenant, and that tenant leases to additional tenants. The owner of the property has no agreements in place with those additional tenants. You are the tenant of the owner; the “college student” is your tenant. You are subletting (part of) your rented space to another.

Murder? War Crime.

Sounds like a good way to kill social media. Anti-social media will thrive in such an environment.

Sure it will. To bypass the ban, kids will be forced to conceal their identities. If they expose themselves, the platforms will be compelled to close their accounts. The consequence of failure to maintain privacy is the inconvenience of opening a new account.

This ban would teach kids to lie better. To conceal their identities online.

That certainly isn’t the objective of the ban, but it would be a positive consequence.

Unfortunately, the negative consequences almost certainly outweigh the positive.

On the plus side, kids under 15 should be taught not to give their names, ages, locations, or any other personal data on the internet. Avoiding the bans that providers would have to enforce against them instills long-term privacy consciousness, making them better netizens in the future.

On the minus, the kid is now violating the law when they get online. They are going to conceal their online activities from the responsible adults in their lives. Groomers and other predators are going to have a field day.

What the ban absolutely won’t do is reduce screen time or keep kids off social media.

Nope. You know exactly what needs to be done. You don’t need us to do it for you.

There is another major advantage…

There is a major problem with solar and wind. Daily and seasonal variation in solar flux and wind speed forces us to size our renewable generators based on their minimum expected output. We have to install enough solar panels that we can supply our needs with only low-angle sunlight on short, winter days. But we won’t do that, because that many solar panels are about four times what we need to supply our needs on long summer days. With that much oversupply on the grid, generators won’t be able to command sufficient revenue to justify that number of panels. But we need that number of panels to supply our winter demands.

We can match a large percentage of daily variation with sufficient grid-scale storage. We fill up reservoirs with our excess mid-day production, and run that water through hydropower plants overnight. But it is simply not possible to expand storage sufficiently to match seasonal variation.

If we build out sufficient solar generation capacity to meet winter demand, we don’t need seasonal storage. The problem we have becomes one of seasonal oversupply. The solution to that problem is an increase in demand. We need energy-intensive products that can be brought online in daylight hours from spring to autumn, then shut down for winter.

Producing net carbon-zero fuels could very well create part of the demand needed to justify massive expansion of our renewable power grid.

The House passed this bill last week. Unsurprisingly, they got the support of exactly the number of Democrats they needed for it to pass.