A lot of people here are vastly overestimating the grade level of material they read. Most newspapers write between a 6th and 8th grade level. NY Times is around 10.

Most politicians also use speeches targeting a 6-8th grade education, for the same reason. Trump speaks somewhere around grade 4.

Laws/bills targeting higher than that, particularly when placed on the ballot, are usually done so to gatekeep the general populace (other people have already posted examples). It’s rarely due to technical requirements.

The irony being that Trump’s base is far less likely to own a passport than his opponents.

It says 50,000 cans. How much more freedom can you get than cans of cheap, shitty American beer?

The detail about hash values is really important. The FBI maintains a database of known CSAM. Presumably, hers is in that database, hence the hash values. While not everyone has access to that DB, Xitter/etc does. There is no ambiguity of anything on that list; there’s also no need for any human to review. It’s already been confirmed.

While I’m not sure there’s any case law about it, I would be amazed if using that to train generative AI (except POSSIBLY as content to block) was treated as anything other than possession, distribution, and maybe even production of CSAM.

Proving it might be difficult without full discovery, and AI is infamous for the massive corpus of training data. However, AI doesn’t always generate truly unique works. Go to any image generator and prompt for a video game plumber, and you’ll see an unmistakable image of Mario. It’s possible that they can find a prompt that generates results close enough to her images.

There’s already precedent that you cannot be forced to give up your passwords. It’s a 5th amendment violation. But I’m not sure if it applies to this case or not.

There are a few states that have similar terms. I suppose the idea is that if the victim hasn’t reached puberty, it’s more devastating?

There’s a pretty famous list that would get republished every time one of these stories hit the news. IIRC, it was Republican politicians convicted of child abuse crimes. But I can’t seem to find it anywhere right now.

There’s a similar list of Democrats. It’s about half the size of the other one.

Adding to this, we all know the Hollywood portrayal of serving papers, and that one is real, but it’s not the only one. Courts can and do approve alternate methods, including certified mail, email, and posting in local newspapers.

Source: Legal Eagle coverage of Reckless Ben/Bricks and Minifigs saga. In this case, the judge allowed service by email.

Creative and unconventional ideas to punish Iran?

Get the world off of oil. That punishes all petrostates, including Iran.

I don’t think it matters if you’re too sick to work. That’s treating people as existing solely for your own benefit, to be exploited.

What does matter, IMHO, is what your expected timeline is. At one time, HIV could’ve been considered a terminal diagnosis. It couldn’t be treated, it would always advance to AIDS, and eventually that would cause your death. But that was likely to be 10+ years away.

If you’ve got less than a year to live, the government should cover your fucking medical care, no exception. Well, maybe the ultra-rich, but I’m sure they’d find a way around it anyway.

Is this “not the onion” because sauerkraut is actually made of cabbage? /s

In all seriousness, I applaud the move. Sauerkraut and home cooking are both laudable initiatives, and whatever keeps him away from all of his usual bullshit can only be a good thing.

Equivalent usage to a farm, maybe. But it’s not a farm. Part of the challenge and conflict about these water rights is that actual farms have priority leases, lasting around 100 years. Cities can’t negotiate drinking water increases, because the farms have priority.

Data centers (and other industrial projects) are at the back of the line. They’re welcome to build their own pipelines, or truck it in, or build a desalination plant. But that river is already spoken for.

Lawyers will almost always advise staying silent. It’s genuinely a right that US citizens have, and one that’s not exercised often enough. Back in February, Les Wexner was testifying to Congress. His lawyer very bluntly told him not to answer any question with more than 5 words.

The real question becomes what does Fauci have to gain or lose by answering these questions. And that’s likely to be “nothing” and “everything”, respectively. He simply has nothing to gain by answering questions. He (and everyone else) does not believe the goal of these questions is to get to the truth. It’s to create a circus, and railroad him into a jail cell.

I wouldn’t take the bait, either.

If it was evidence, they fucked up BIG TIME if their actions weren’t read-only from the beginning. A distress password would be an attempt at destruction of evidence, but completely unsuccessful.

TBH, it makes perfect sense. If you don’t want to be subject to the laws of California (or whatever state/city/country), you need to genuinely not be there. This is true as a resident or a business.

It doesn’t surprise me at all that people want the benefits of living in California without the obligations.

Birthright citizenship is by no means the standard. It’s not rare, but most of the world does not use it. Most of them are in the Americas, but that whole thing gets complicated.

Most countries grant citizenship to the children of their citizens. IOW, the child inherits citizenship from its parents. If nothing else, the mother is going to be known by nature of the birth, and the child would have at least her citizenship.

(Exceptions exist, but they exist for Jus Soli as well)

Even worse, it suggests that whatever the AI used as training data also shows retaliation. Since it’s internal, there’s a good chance they just showed that they illegally retaliate.

As much as I love the idea, I’m sure their accountants would find a way around it. That’s largely what trust funds are for today.

Entrapment has a very specific definition, and this ain’t it.

It might still be an illegal speed limit change, but that’s going to depend on an awful lot of details. It’s certainly bad design, but the locals probably like it for the money it brings in.

She probably used it earlier, but not necessarily. She might not have a good place to set her phone in her car.

She might have used it earlier, at a time where it was legal. For instance, setting navigation or music before driving. Or (depending on local laws) while stopped at a light.