Given its recent behavior, my prediction is that the Roberts court would drag out hearing any challenge against Trump's 2028 candidacy until such time that they can confidently announce that it's too close to the election to remove him from the ballot, much like they did with his criminal case regarding classified documents leading up to the 2024 election.

Such structures would have better latency due to locality, they wouldn't be subject to transmission interference from weather, they'd be far more accessible for replacements/upgrades, and being underground naturally aids in cooling and noise suppression.

While it would be resource intensive to dig out the underground structure, I'd be surprised if it even came close to the resource expenditure required to launch all your computer hardware into stable orbit, not even accounting for the fact that the former is a one-time, up-front cost, while the latter would have to be re-done every time you replace hardware.

Mass surveillance apparatus like flock cameras and their ilk have a huge surface area for abuse, meaning there must be at least as large a positive impact to even be worth considering.

Unfortunately, we already have plenty of historical evidence from areas that deployed cameras all over - e.g., London, where there was a near-zero drop in crime afterward, and multiple cities in the US, where police immediately began abusing the systems.

There is no baby to throw out, and the bathwater is toxic.

The best thing you can do is avoid products with trackers while they haven't taken over their entire market, learn to disable GPS, wireless, and cellular antennae once they do, and pray manufacturers take a while to insert dead-man switches as well.

Of course, all that ignores that people's bodies are different, and some people will be slim no matter what they do, while others are doomed to be heavier regardless what they do on their own (barring extremes like developing eating disorders), but I'm not sure it would matter even should everyone understand that -- a large proportion of people need someone they perceive as lesser whom they can look down upon, and physical appearance is a quick and easy means to categorize others.

Strictly speaking, this would fall under the umbrella of controlling what everyone does with their bodies.

A close parallel to disallowing surrogacy is the fact that it's illegal to sell organs. Why should we prevent someone from selling a valuable, redundant organ like a kidney or a lung? The obvious reason is the same as the one used by European countries with regards to surrogacy: because it inevitably leads to the exploitation of the poor.

If anything, I'm a bit surprised the US disallows organ sales (see 42 USC 274e: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/274e) while still allowing surrogacy contracts in most states.

The power is why politicians deserve greater scrutiny than the average person, and anyone who wants to keep their privacy intact can choose not to run for office. The loss of privacy (usually at the hands of the press) is already an implied cost of running for and holding office.

Nearly every neighbor of Israel has made statements of this type over the years, and yet, none have been in a position militarily for any such statements to amount to more than hot air.

Israel is a bad guy in a sea of other bad guys, but currently, only Israel is carrying out a genocide.

Being a parent is a big responsibility, and (barring rare exceptions) you don't become one unintentionally.

Unfortunately, I see plenty of people out in the wild who act like their kids' behavior is none of their business. There was a time when parents unable to control their children would be asked to leave public establishments, but now, everyone is supposed to stand by impotently, and anyone who dares speak up is accosted by the bad parent(s).

I wish I could believe this, but I suspect it's just another instance of the law ceasing to apply to entities whose net worth has enough zeroes in it.

With how much money is sloshing around in the AI industry, there's almost nothing AI companies can do which has any likelihood of resulting in legal accountability. You'll much sooner see laws changed and/or reinterpreted than enforced.

I was with you on your second list until this part. It feels like a poison pill rider that's added to a bill in Congress, because I've always found code review to be the single most soul-sucking aspect of the job.

I'll grant that may be at least partially due to poor practices at the places I've worked, but semi-regularly having large PRs that take hours to comb through and where you either rubber-stamp it or look like the bad guy (because you're retarding release velocity) has never been particularly fulfilling.

Not just that: my hands get dry enough sometimes that my phone's touch interface doesn't work reliably, in which case, I'd expect a touchscreen interface in a newer car would face similar problems. Physical buttons don't have that problem.

It's reframed that way so it can be dismissed out of hand.

It's already difficult to get anyone to care when men experience troubles (because they should "man up" and solve things themselves), and when you make it sound like it's because men expect something from women, not only does it cease to be a problem worth caring about, but it becomes a threat we need to shout down.

The issue of male loneliness isn't just that men are having a hard time forming relationships with women: it's much broader, and more importantly, it's inclusive of hardships starting and maintaining friendships with other men.

Part of this is due to the fact that most spaces men used to have for socialization have long since been shut down.

However, the small grain of truth buried in the reframing is that women are better at cultivating and maintaining friend groups, and a lot of men currently maintain their social circles through their wives. Of course, the solution is not that we should assign women companions to men like the military would assign a firearm to a soldier, but rather our society needs to start teaching men how to better maintain friendships on their own.

As stated in the article, we do have evidence that people are more alone than ever, and there's a correlation between being alone and loneliness. It's perfectly reasonable to ask whether (but not assume) people are more lonely than ever.

Anti-vaxxers are a good example. Despite studies repeatedly debunking the link between vaccines and autism, plenty of people still believe vaccines cause autism. Many people who know someone who has experienced side effects from a vaccine start to believe vaccines are dangerous regardless of any studies demonstrating how exceedingly rare said side effects are.

Flat Earthers are another example. While undoubtedly some of their ranks are people just trying to be contrarian, the true believers will find alternative explanations for every piece of evidence you try to show them that Earth is indeed round.