Not really, just because a platform can point to a clause that says it doesn't require age verification isn't going to save them if that's effectively the only way to get the required outcome as they'll likely just be told to 'nerd harder' to find a way to comply with the law, and if that way just so happens to be age verification well that's on them.
While supporters continue to claim this bill protects minors online, its requirements come at the expense of privacy, free expression, and the ability of people of all ages to use the internet without revealing sensitive data. To be fair eliminating the ability for minors(among many others) to be online would technically make it safer for them. Hard to be 'injured' in a place you're not allowed to be in after all.
99.99% of politicians using 'for the children!' as a way to cram through corrupt and/or garbage legislation that would not survive honest scrutiny really ruin if for the .01% that actually do care about the safety and wellbeing of children...
But beyond a few people in government agencies who think the public has too much power, Pacheco seems to be on her own here. With any luck, it will remain that way and this terrible proposal will become something else that can be ignored indefinitely. It shouldn't be 'ignored indefinitely' it should be officially killed off, and Pacheco should spend the rest of her career with the reputation of someone not to be trusted, a politician who will fake walking back their position to get what they want only to take it right back up the second opposition drops thanks to the fraudulent 'concession'.
'The tangerine tyrant screws up the reflecting pool and it's now filled with algae and dead ducks' isn't really noteworthy compared to much bigger issues, sure, but 'And he's having people arrested and claiming that the reason it's in the state it is is because of intentional sabotage' very much is.
“If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” — Lyndon B. Johnson
I’m not asking anyone to like bad uses of AI in gaming. I’m not even asking anyone to like AI in gaming generally. Several paragraphs above: That’s not how it’s supposed to work. Unless you believe that every use of AI in gaming is bad, that is. And if that’s your stance, you’re going to spend a lot of time being upset, because this isn’t going to stop. These are tools and tools will be used in the industry. Admittedly telling people to suck it up and deal isn't telling them to be happy that AI is being crammed everywhere an exec can manage it, but it's not exactly better either nor more likely to convince people to jump on board the AI train. (As an aside it occurs to me that 'like it or not this is how it's going to work from now on so learn to deal with it' could be and almost certainly was used to defend/justify the likes of lootboxes and micro/macro-transactions.)
If they really want to claim that AI datacenters are 'vital to national security' then it sure sounds like they just make an amazing argument for why they shouldn't be anywhere near minority neighborhoods given the venn diagram of people making those claims and people claiming that minority areas are crime-riddled hellholes is almost certain to be a perfect circle. By their argument datacenters should be either in the middle of no-where and surrounded by military-level guards or if they have to be near/in a city then they should be placed in more 'safe' zones filled with those of a more pale complexion and hefty bank accounts. Personally I suggest placing them adjacent to if not in already existing gated communities as those places already have walls and security to better protect the 'national security' that are datacenters and if that poses some issues for those communities then too bad, no cost is too high for 'national security' after all.
Unless you have something to hide, why would you object to cameras that record license plates and other information? As always for people that try that dishonest line I have but two words: 'You first'.
One third voted for it, one third voted against it, and one third decided that almost certainly the most important presidential election of their lives was the perfect time to throw a foot-stomping fit and either stay at home or cast tantrum votes. Not everyone voted for the current situation in the US but two-thirds did, whether directly or indirectly, and it's just a terrible shame that those that tried to prevent the current ongoing disaster have to suffer right alongside those that cheered it on or shrugged it off in indifference.
Given what happened to Disney over the, as it turns out short-lived sacking of Jimmy Kimmel I expect that paying out over a short bit of music will be the least of CBS' financial pains in the coming months after sacking Colbert and killing The Late Show to appease the regime...
Damnit principles, now you have me agreeing with Ted Cruz of all people, even if only for a second?
It's a good thing for that argument that there is literally no other options besides 'Let the boats pass unmolested' and 'Kill everyone on the boats sight unseen'...
I'd love it if they responded by issuing a public letter explaining to him that the 'study' was retracted because it was junk science based upon the medical equivalent of 'Trust me bro' since that's ultimately what the VAERS system is.
[T]he Order fails to rationally connect any facts to the action taken. It claims that the removals will “restore Federal sites . . . to solemn and uplifting public monuments that remind Americans of our extraordinary heritage.” However, the Order fails to explain how unearthing and displaying the historical contributions of marginalized groups detracts from celebrating “our extraordinary heritage.” Indeed, the NPS’ purpose in installing these materials in the first instance was to attract new audiences to National Parks by celebrating diverse experiences. Ah I see the point of confusion, lemme clear that up for the judge there. The bigots pushing for the rather literal whitewashing of history don't consider anyone who isn't white as people, not even three-fifths of people, therefore anything those non-people might have done or accomplished doesn't count when it comes to 'our heritage' and is just distracting from or worse painting a completely-fictional-and-absolutely-unjustified negative image of the ones that matter, straight white men.
Every accusation a confession, every self-given label a rejection of.
It's less a requirement that you be a moron, though there is certainly plenty of that in the regime, and more that you have to have absolutely zero morals, no self-respect whatsoever, and an absolute and ironclad loyalty to Trump to the point that you'll agree with and support anything he says or does.
Never forget, or let them forget for even one moment that as much blame as the regime shoulders for ordering these murders an equal amount is shared by those choosing to carry them out, because 'I was just following orders' is not, never has been and never will be an acceptable excuse or justification.
I expect that this is merely the first time that the tangerine tyrant will try to force his election rigging bill through by stapling it to other bills and that he'll only get more desperate the closer to the mid-terms it becomes, so hopefully this will merely be the first time it's used to inadvertently kill terrible bills.
The bullet (temporarily) dodged is SO much worse...
As the article rightly points out the fourteenth amendment is crystal clear with no room for confusion or debate: If you're born in the US you're a US citizen, end of story. Given how crystal clear the amendment is while on the surface this case was about overturning one constitutional amendment I'm strongly of the opinion that the question that was really presented and ruled on is vastly more horrifying: 'Does a republican president have the legal and constitutional authority to use EO's to overturn or re-write constitutional amendments, completely bypassing the current process and restrictions in place that would otherwise be required for or prohibit respectively that action?' The fact that that question made it to the US supreme court to begin with and took more than five minutes to answer is eclipsed only by the fact that the answer to the above question was one vote away from being yes on the 'Oh the US is fucked' scale.