The tradeoff from living cheaply won't be hoarding of money or stuff, it will be the ability to have a one-parent, 40 hour a week working family. Trading free time for stuff that doesn't enrich your life anyway.
I don't think that even the economic ability to have a single-parent, 40-hour work-week family means it is a good idea. If you look at the statistics, children coming from single parent homes are over-represented in just about every category for negative life outcomes whether it's crime, suicide, teen pregnancy, drug use, etc. The economic growth that we've seen has allowed us to support this without collapsing in on ourselves, but it's not a good thing. All of the labor being devoted to dealing with those issues could be redirected to enriching our lives in other ways.
I'm not overly familiar with Australia's system, but I had thought that it was parliamentary, which almost always has voting along coalition lines. In the U.S. voting is also typically along party lines, but you occasionally have some blue dog Democrats or Republicans from the North East that will vote against the line on some issues.
However, I think this is where the open source community should look to get involved. One of the chief complains about electronic voting systems is an inability to audit the system to ensure that it truly is accurate and fair. It's also going to be a lot less expensive than the government foisting out huge chunks of taxpayer money to some corporate friends, who may not be any more capable of delivering than a group of remote individuals building such a system.
I think that's a large part of government spending in general and not limited to the social justice crowd. Look at the various military contractors or education in general to realize that nearly everyone's got their fingers in the pot. Various other subsidies in the form of tax breaks amount to similarly large figures. Government spending as a % of GDP is slowly creeping up towards levels seen during the second world war.
So you're suggesting that the overall conclusion (the sexes are biologically different from each other in ways that lead to differences in vocational choice) is true even if the original poster's reasoning for the cause wasn't quite correct?
You don't need to understand a lick of programming to know how to use a computer anymore, much like you don't need to be an engineer or mechanic to operate an automobile and in another decade or so you won't even need to know how to drive one as that will have been abstracted away.
What you're proposing is just basic computer literacy, which is a wholly different animal than computer science. I'd argue that such a class is probably more beneficial than trying to teach everyone to program. Perhaps people might take better steps to protect their privacy online, be better at finding information, or be less vulnerable to phishing scams.
I'm not sure how well this will work. If there's already a belief that administrators and parents don't have a good understanding of what constitutes computer science, then what indication is there that they'll be able to reliably report it. I suppose it's better than no data, but I'm uncertain how accurate it will actually be, or how well it will be maintained. There may even be misreporting of information if this database is somehow tied to funding opportunities.
The Republican / Democrat divide is a perfect example of humans inability to process nuance outside their areas of deep understanding, which are generally very narrow if they exist at all.
I think that part of the problem is that our political system with first past the post style voting actively creates a two party system that invariably draws various lines in the sand to create such a divide, removing any room for nuance. There is no major political party with seats at the table that allows someone to be pro-drug, pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, pro-gun, pro border wall, and pro-GMO all at the same time. Such a person isn't going to fit with either dominant party or the positions that they've cultivated.
If we had a system that allowed for that nuance to exist, I think we'd find that people could afford to be open to different mixtures of opinions instead of having to cast their lot in with whatever group sides with them for the one thing they care most about, but may be completely opposed to them on the issues that are second and third most important. I think that most people tend to be neutral about many positions, but ultimately end up being forced into their party's beliefs as a result of the us vs. them mentality brought about by a two party system and a desire to rationalize their choice for belonging to the party.
When you've only got two big groups that can hold power, issues tend to get distilled into two different sides, when in reality there's probably a lot more nuance. Abortion, for example, is hardly just pro-choice and pro-life. There're people who don't think abortion is good, but that it's not any of their business to interfere with someone else's medical decisions. There are people who would only like to allow it in the case of necessity to save a mother's life. There are some who probably believe that it should be required in cases where genetic diseases or other complications in pregnancy would make the fetus nonviable or severely impaired. There are probably some who believe that it should never be used in any circumstance, but that a woman should have the ability to give up the child for adoption so that pregnancy doesn't become an undue burden for them beyond 9 months. There's probably plenty of other takes that I can't even imagine.
Israel doesn't like Iran to be certain, but they're hardly the only one in the region. The Saudi's are as much in favor of this as Israel and neither of them want others in the region to have nukes.
Personally, I'd be far more in favor of the U.S. dumping Saudi Arabia and having closer ties with Iran as I believe they have the best chance at helping to Westernize the region in the long term, but I don't see it happening in the near term due to our current political alliances making that difficult to swing.
Seems doubtful. He got into a bigger shit flinging contest with Kim Jong-un and nothing came of that. If he was really interested in starting a war, North Korea would have been a much easier sell. Trump is mostly all talk and very little action. If it seems like he's doing a lot, it's only because he's undoing previous executive orders created under Obama. As far as getting any real legislation passed, the Trump administration is worse than Obama in his first few years when the Democrats had control of Congress.
Almost anything can be viewed that way by those criteria. You could buy a large number of CPUs in the hopes that some can overclock exceptionally well and be resold at a higher price. A delidded 8700K that can hit 5.2 GHz goes for $659, which is ~$300 over its retail value. Almost any product that has variability in terms of quality can be viewed as a loot box if you consider monetary value in a secondary market. I'm not sure if that's a good way to go about categorizing things.
I doubt that EA is targeting children. None of them have their own credit cards and their parents sure as hell aren't going to let them run up massive charges on theirs or even let them use it.
Twitter is practically worthless for taking customer feedback. About the only thing you can get is useless praise or (as is the case here) unwanted abuse. If people have problems, direct them to a complain form where they can provide far more meaningful information about the nature of the problem. Take the first example: "Thanks @MTA for making sure we can't buy metrocards AGAIN," which might be useful if someone knew which machine they were talking about. Twitter's character limitations make it pretty useless as any kind of trouble ticket system.
Worse, you need to have the people reading the tweets manually enter the information, because now people will just rage on Twitter instead of submitting any kind of problem form.
Why even dignify any of it with a response. I suppose I can see Twitter being a reasonable platform for an agency to post announcements to so that the people who can't be assed to go to their website or read bulletins can get the information, but why bother to read anything someone tweets at them. That's just a waste of time.
Vinyl can still sell because it's relatively inexpensive and plenty of record stores sell used records for pretty cheap. However, no hipster has $11,000 to spend, so I don't see this having much of a market outside of the rich audiophile crowd that thinks it will pair nicely with their gold-plated monster cables.
A person's time is more valuable than a computer algorithm's and if you have hundreds of applications, there's no way any one person could hope to evaluate them all. There's also no guarantee that the HR person is any better than an algorithm either, or at least not so much so to be worth the extra cost. It's even more expensive if you want applicants to talk to your developers, engineers, etc. that are actually capable of assessing an applicant so you need some way of getting a shortlist of candidates.
I've heard one manager jocularly state that he just takes half of the applications and throws them away without even reading them because he didn't want anyone who was unlucky working at the company. He may have been joking, but he probably wasn't lying. Sometimes there's just too many applications to reasonably go through and be able to talk to everyone.
Depends on the vegetables, but meat is a good source of a lot of nutrients. Protein deficiency in adolescence is devastating in terms of brain development. Unless you live in parts of the world that are lucky enough to have protein rich vegetables that grow natively or rich enough to be able to import them or otherwise supplement your diet, then meat of some sort is necessary.
Even red meat isn't bad for you if prepared properly. A lot of the carcinogenic effects are from grilling it and burning parts of it, which incidentally can be counteracted with the consumption of alcohol. Or you can just cook it in other ways that don't involve burning the outer layers of the meat (yeah I know it tastes good) which is what happens when preparing most red meats due to grilling.
Greens are certainly good for some nutrients, but reds are better for others. You're much better off cutting out the grains and fruits, than your meats.
The problem is that all of these platforms are businesses and the most successful will win out over their competition. This naturally leads businesses to stumble across this behavior even if they don't understand what they're actually doing and for those businesses which don't follow suit to lose out. There are a lot of games that are essentially Skinner boxes, but I don't think anyone sat down in the 90's and intentionally built them that way. Instead they probably tried out a lot of things and discovered what felt the most pleasurable to them and other developers saw the success and followed suit. Eventually some people more well-versed in the scientific literature noticed some similarities between the research and these games (or other domains) and pointed this out. People were already doing it without actively understanding what they were doing, but at this point I think there were some developers that realized that could build even better boxes instead of the sloppy approximations that had been created up until then. Now you've got shitty microtransaction games that cost perhaps a few tens of thousand of dollars to develop, but can pull in millions because they've been purpose built to addict people.
I'd be less worried about it if Twitter were trying to create a useful communication platform. That, however, appears to be something of an afterthought. We can certainly use these techniques for ill, but if you're using them to get people to exercise more, eat better, etc. I have a hard time finding fault in using such cognitive tricks. Hell, I've intentionally used some of them on myself in order to adjust my behavior. The only way I view it as dishonest or deceitful is to do it to someone else without explaining to them what is being done and how it works. If someone wants to keep buying game coins, collecting virtual points, amassing followers, etc. after the nature of what they're doing has been explained to them, I have to conclude that such is their own business.
Pretty much every technology was at one time for the rich only. Eventually it becomes so cheap and commonplace that everyone has it. Indoor plumbing was unheard of for the common people at one point and now you can scarcely find a place without it. Even cars in general were the same at one point and now almost everyone in the country has one. Of the working population, only 3.4% households do not have a vehicle and we're moving towards the point where about half of households have more vehicles than people in the household that are working. Given enough time, flying cars (or whatever future invention that replaces the automobiles of today) will be the same as well.
Any new technology is going to be expensive at first, which limits customers to those wealthy enough to afford it. Just like cellular phones were when they first hit the market, where the phone cost thousand of dollars, wasn't truly all that portable, and you paid roughly the equivalent of a dollar a minute on top of that just to use it. If you saw someone using one back in the 80's, they were probably a celebrity or a rich Wall Street investor type. Now cell phones are so ubiquitous that homeless people can have them and they've got loads of other capabilities on top of that so that if you have an Android smart phone you can get by without owning a computer or a TV since it can do those things for you.
I hope that rich people love their flying cars and want to sink loads of their money into them. Because when that happens, people are going to be lining up to try and get some of their money and they're going to have to find better ways of producing those flying cars for less money. Eventually they'll get to the point where the common schmucks like you and I can have one too, just like with automobiles, cell phones, and everything else that's ever existed. Of course you'll just take that for granted and be too busy whining about the best minds trying to give the rich personal space cruisers. You'll probably be complaining about it through the neural-internet interface in you flying car.
I actually proposed a Constitutional Amendment. Working on the language.
The language needs a lot of work. What you've written makes for something that sounds wonderfully pleasing, but it riddled with the kind of ambiguity that means nothing will change and more of the court's time will be wasted arguing about how this should be interpreted. Specifically:
1) What constitutes necessity for the security of the public and who will determine this? Is if sufficient to confine a person if one of person greatly fears for their life and the public at large is under no additional danger in any way?
2) What is meant by the greatest extend achievable? If you want to throw an infinite amount of money at the system, there's quite a bit that could be achieved. Realistically, who gets to determine what's achievable with the meager budget that the system does get?
3) What does dignity as human beings mean? Comes across as useless platitudes that mean whatever the reader wants it to mean.
4) What needs are not currently being met and who gets to determine what a person's needs are? If someone really needs a good lay, is society on the hook for the hooker?
5) Inmates already should be having their rights protected. If the system is not doing a good job presently with similar rules in place, what makes you think some flowery language will change anything?
6) When are other means insufficient as to require bail? Everyone is going to interpret this their own way.
7) Who gets to determine the value of civil damages and what constitutes excess? This might work if someone's property is damaged, but how to you value mental anguish, undue suffering, or even the loss of life?
More generally, what do you propose to do with those who either refuse to be rehabilitated or cannot be rehabilitated? It might be nice to think that you can save or fix everyone, but there are some sick people who are broken beyond our ability to repair them. You're unlikely to be able to cure many serial rapists, murders, or child molesters who have committed multiple crimes against numerous victims. Trying to figure out who can be rehabilitated and who can't be is tricky business and the first time you let out a "rehabilitated" person who goes off and rapes another child, the public is going to burn down your house in anger. I don't even think this passes as that's going to be the main argument against it and people will respond emotionally.
How much wear and tear does the flash memory in the typically device actually take? Now that that amount of RAM on these phones is sufficiently high (The newest Android flagships have 4 GB now) there shouldn't be as much need to use the flash memory for a pagefile or something of the sort. I'm not even using 64 GB on my phone (most of it is music which is just going to be read from) and that's what comes standard on most flagship devices these days.
I suspect that a lot of this used flash would still outlast the expected lifespan of the device for most people. I can even see the recycling companies using this technique themselves to sell the recycled chips in different bins based on use. The article doesn't describe the extent to which people are getting worn out flash memory, and I suspect it's not a particularly big issue.
It's probably not that simple. Some people who don't care are going to use proxies to get around the block. Also, you don't need to be a member of a website in order for them to be able to build a profile of you and your information. You probably have friends and acquaintances who are members that will gladly supply some information about you in fairly innocuous manners such as tagging you in photos or indicating a shared work history.
Even if you follow GDPR and are compliant, all it takes is one data breach for that information to be available to whomever wants to hoover it up. Banks have all manners of security regulations and take various other precautions themselves, but about 4,000 are still robbed every year in the U.S.
As long as the data is valuable, someone will try to find a way to obtain it. I'm sure that in 5 years we'll be complaining about the various legal loopholes in these laws that have rendered them toothless for some reason.
Slashdot Mirror
The tradeoff from living cheaply won't be hoarding of money or stuff, it will be the ability to have a one-parent, 40 hour a week working family. Trading free time for stuff that doesn't enrich your life anyway.
I don't think that even the economic ability to have a single-parent, 40-hour work-week family means it is a good idea. If you look at the statistics, children coming from single parent homes are over-represented in just about every category for negative life outcomes whether it's crime, suicide, teen pregnancy, drug use, etc. The economic growth that we've seen has allowed us to support this without collapsing in on ourselves, but it's not a good thing. All of the labor being devoted to dealing with those issues could be redirected to enriching our lives in other ways.
I'm not overly familiar with Australia's system, but I had thought that it was parliamentary, which almost always has voting along coalition lines. In the U.S. voting is also typically along party lines, but you occasionally have some blue dog Democrats or Republicans from the North East that will vote against the line on some issues.
However, I think this is where the open source community should look to get involved. One of the chief complains about electronic voting systems is an inability to audit the system to ensure that it truly is accurate and fair. It's also going to be a lot less expensive than the government foisting out huge chunks of taxpayer money to some corporate friends, who may not be any more capable of delivering than a group of remote individuals building such a system.
I think that's a large part of government spending in general and not limited to the social justice crowd. Look at the various military contractors or education in general to realize that nearly everyone's got their fingers in the pot. Various other subsidies in the form of tax breaks amount to similarly large figures. Government spending as a % of GDP is slowly creeping up towards levels seen during the second world war.
So you're suggesting that the overall conclusion (the sexes are biologically different from each other in ways that lead to differences in vocational choice) is true even if the original poster's reasoning for the cause wasn't quite correct?
Also, mathematics is a broad subject and it turns out that men and women are better/worse at certain parts of it. Here's a pretty good paper that references the research in the area quite broadly.
You don't need to understand a lick of programming to know how to use a computer anymore, much like you don't need to be an engineer or mechanic to operate an automobile and in another decade or so you won't even need to know how to drive one as that will have been abstracted away.
What you're proposing is just basic computer literacy, which is a wholly different animal than computer science. I'd argue that such a class is probably more beneficial than trying to teach everyone to program. Perhaps people might take better steps to protect their privacy online, be better at finding information, or be less vulnerable to phishing scams.
I'm not sure how well this will work. If there's already a belief that administrators and parents don't have a good understanding of what constitutes computer science, then what indication is there that they'll be able to reliably report it. I suppose it's better than no data, but I'm uncertain how accurate it will actually be, or how well it will be maintained. There may even be misreporting of information if this database is somehow tied to funding opportunities.
The Republican / Democrat divide is a perfect example of humans inability to process nuance outside their areas of deep understanding, which are generally very narrow if they exist at all.
I think that part of the problem is that our political system with first past the post style voting actively creates a two party system that invariably draws various lines in the sand to create such a divide, removing any room for nuance. There is no major political party with seats at the table that allows someone to be pro-drug, pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, pro-gun, pro border wall, and pro-GMO all at the same time. Such a person isn't going to fit with either dominant party or the positions that they've cultivated.
If we had a system that allowed for that nuance to exist, I think we'd find that people could afford to be open to different mixtures of opinions instead of having to cast their lot in with whatever group sides with them for the one thing they care most about, but may be completely opposed to them on the issues that are second and third most important. I think that most people tend to be neutral about many positions, but ultimately end up being forced into their party's beliefs as a result of the us vs. them mentality brought about by a two party system and a desire to rationalize their choice for belonging to the party.
When you've only got two big groups that can hold power, issues tend to get distilled into two different sides, when in reality there's probably a lot more nuance. Abortion, for example, is hardly just pro-choice and pro-life. There're people who don't think abortion is good, but that it's not any of their business to interfere with someone else's medical decisions. There are people who would only like to allow it in the case of necessity to save a mother's life. There are some who probably believe that it should be required in cases where genetic diseases or other complications in pregnancy would make the fetus nonviable or severely impaired. There are probably some who believe that it should never be used in any circumstance, but that a woman should have the ability to give up the child for adoption so that pregnancy doesn't become an undue burden for them beyond 9 months. There's probably plenty of other takes that I can't even imagine.
Israel doesn't like Iran to be certain, but they're hardly the only one in the region. The Saudi's are as much in favor of this as Israel and neither of them want others in the region to have nukes.
Personally, I'd be far more in favor of the U.S. dumping Saudi Arabia and having closer ties with Iran as I believe they have the best chance at helping to Westernize the region in the long term, but I don't see it happening in the near term due to our current political alliances making that difficult to swing.
Seems doubtful. He got into a bigger shit flinging contest with Kim Jong-un and nothing came of that. If he was really interested in starting a war, North Korea would have been a much easier sell. Trump is mostly all talk and very little action. If it seems like he's doing a lot, it's only because he's undoing previous executive orders created under Obama. As far as getting any real legislation passed, the Trump administration is worse than Obama in his first few years when the Democrats had control of Congress.
It'll probably have some god awful side effects like shitting blood, suicidal thoughts, or erectile dysfunction. Maybe even a three!
Almost anything can be viewed that way by those criteria. You could buy a large number of CPUs in the hopes that some can overclock exceptionally well and be resold at a higher price. A delidded 8700K that can hit 5.2 GHz goes for $659, which is ~$300 over its retail value. Almost any product that has variability in terms of quality can be viewed as a loot box if you consider monetary value in a secondary market. I'm not sure if that's a good way to go about categorizing things.
I doubt that EA is targeting children. None of them have their own credit cards and their parents sure as hell aren't going to let them run up massive charges on theirs or even let them use it.
Twitter is practically worthless for taking customer feedback. About the only thing you can get is useless praise or (as is the case here) unwanted abuse. If people have problems, direct them to a complain form where they can provide far more meaningful information about the nature of the problem. Take the first example: "Thanks @MTA for making sure we can't buy metrocards AGAIN," which might be useful if someone knew which machine they were talking about. Twitter's character limitations make it pretty useless as any kind of trouble ticket system.
Worse, you need to have the people reading the tweets manually enter the information, because now people will just rage on Twitter instead of submitting any kind of problem form.
Why even dignify any of it with a response. I suppose I can see Twitter being a reasonable platform for an agency to post announcements to so that the people who can't be assed to go to their website or read bulletins can get the information, but why bother to read anything someone tweets at them. That's just a waste of time.
Vinyl can still sell because it's relatively inexpensive and plenty of record stores sell used records for pretty cheap. However, no hipster has $11,000 to spend, so I don't see this having much of a market outside of the rich audiophile crowd that thinks it will pair nicely with their gold-plated monster cables.
A person's time is more valuable than a computer algorithm's and if you have hundreds of applications, there's no way any one person could hope to evaluate them all. There's also no guarantee that the HR person is any better than an algorithm either, or at least not so much so to be worth the extra cost. It's even more expensive if you want applicants to talk to your developers, engineers, etc. that are actually capable of assessing an applicant so you need some way of getting a shortlist of candidates.
I've heard one manager jocularly state that he just takes half of the applications and throws them away without even reading them because he didn't want anyone who was unlucky working at the company. He may have been joking, but he probably wasn't lying. Sometimes there's just too many applications to reasonably go through and be able to talk to everyone.
Are the stereotypical old ladies of the future going to monitor their Neighbors app instead of a police scanner?
Joking aside, I wonder if this will do more to create false perceptions of danger than it will to keep people genuinely informed.
Or Microsoft Bob.
Depends on the vegetables, but meat is a good source of a lot of nutrients. Protein deficiency in adolescence is devastating in terms of brain development. Unless you live in parts of the world that are lucky enough to have protein rich vegetables that grow natively or rich enough to be able to import them or otherwise supplement your diet, then meat of some sort is necessary.
Even red meat isn't bad for you if prepared properly. A lot of the carcinogenic effects are from grilling it and burning parts of it, which incidentally can be counteracted with the consumption of alcohol. Or you can just cook it in other ways that don't involve burning the outer layers of the meat (yeah I know it tastes good) which is what happens when preparing most red meats due to grilling.
Greens are certainly good for some nutrients, but reds are better for others. You're much better off cutting out the grains and fruits, than your meats.
The problem is that all of these platforms are businesses and the most successful will win out over their competition. This naturally leads businesses to stumble across this behavior even if they don't understand what they're actually doing and for those businesses which don't follow suit to lose out. There are a lot of games that are essentially Skinner boxes, but I don't think anyone sat down in the 90's and intentionally built them that way. Instead they probably tried out a lot of things and discovered what felt the most pleasurable to them and other developers saw the success and followed suit. Eventually some people more well-versed in the scientific literature noticed some similarities between the research and these games (or other domains) and pointed this out. People were already doing it without actively understanding what they were doing, but at this point I think there were some developers that realized that could build even better boxes instead of the sloppy approximations that had been created up until then. Now you've got shitty microtransaction games that cost perhaps a few tens of thousand of dollars to develop, but can pull in millions because they've been purpose built to addict people.
I'd be less worried about it if Twitter were trying to create a useful communication platform. That, however, appears to be something of an afterthought. We can certainly use these techniques for ill, but if you're using them to get people to exercise more, eat better, etc. I have a hard time finding fault in using such cognitive tricks. Hell, I've intentionally used some of them on myself in order to adjust my behavior. The only way I view it as dishonest or deceitful is to do it to someone else without explaining to them what is being done and how it works. If someone wants to keep buying game coins, collecting virtual points, amassing followers, etc. after the nature of what they're doing has been explained to them, I have to conclude that such is their own business.
Pretty much every technology was at one time for the rich only. Eventually it becomes so cheap and commonplace that everyone has it. Indoor plumbing was unheard of for the common people at one point and now you can scarcely find a place without it. Even cars in general were the same at one point and now almost everyone in the country has one. Of the working population, only 3.4% households do not have a vehicle and we're moving towards the point where about half of households have more vehicles than people in the household that are working. Given enough time, flying cars (or whatever future invention that replaces the automobiles of today) will be the same as well.
Any new technology is going to be expensive at first, which limits customers to those wealthy enough to afford it. Just like cellular phones were when they first hit the market, where the phone cost thousand of dollars, wasn't truly all that portable, and you paid roughly the equivalent of a dollar a minute on top of that just to use it. If you saw someone using one back in the 80's, they were probably a celebrity or a rich Wall Street investor type. Now cell phones are so ubiquitous that homeless people can have them and they've got loads of other capabilities on top of that so that if you have an Android smart phone you can get by without owning a computer or a TV since it can do those things for you.
I hope that rich people love their flying cars and want to sink loads of their money into them. Because when that happens, people are going to be lining up to try and get some of their money and they're going to have to find better ways of producing those flying cars for less money. Eventually they'll get to the point where the common schmucks like you and I can have one too, just like with automobiles, cell phones, and everything else that's ever existed. Of course you'll just take that for granted and be too busy whining about the best minds trying to give the rich personal space cruisers. You'll probably be complaining about it through the neural-internet interface in you flying car.
I actually proposed a Constitutional Amendment. Working on the language.
The language needs a lot of work. What you've written makes for something that sounds wonderfully pleasing, but it riddled with the kind of ambiguity that means nothing will change and more of the court's time will be wasted arguing about how this should be interpreted. Specifically:
1) What constitutes necessity for the security of the public and who will determine this? Is if sufficient to confine a person if one of person greatly fears for their life and the public at large is under no additional danger in any way?
2) What is meant by the greatest extend achievable? If you want to throw an infinite amount of money at the system, there's quite a bit that could be achieved. Realistically, who gets to determine what's achievable with the meager budget that the system does get?
3) What does dignity as human beings mean? Comes across as useless platitudes that mean whatever the reader wants it to mean.
4) What needs are not currently being met and who gets to determine what a person's needs are? If someone really needs a good lay, is society on the hook for the hooker?
5) Inmates already should be having their rights protected. If the system is not doing a good job presently with similar rules in place, what makes you think some flowery language will change anything?
6) When are other means insufficient as to require bail? Everyone is going to interpret this their own way.
7) Who gets to determine the value of civil damages and what constitutes excess? This might work if someone's property is damaged, but how to you value mental anguish, undue suffering, or even the loss of life?
More generally, what do you propose to do with those who either refuse to be rehabilitated or cannot be rehabilitated? It might be nice to think that you can save or fix everyone, but there are some sick people who are broken beyond our ability to repair them. You're unlikely to be able to cure many serial rapists, murders, or child molesters who have committed multiple crimes against numerous victims. Trying to figure out who can be rehabilitated and who can't be is tricky business and the first time you let out a "rehabilitated" person who goes off and rapes another child, the public is going to burn down your house in anger. I don't even think this passes as that's going to be the main argument against it and people will respond emotionally.
We go after the providers as it is literally the only way it can be done.
I'm perfectly willing to accept the collateral damage from drone strikes on this one.
How much wear and tear does the flash memory in the typically device actually take? Now that that amount of RAM on these phones is sufficiently high (The newest Android flagships have 4 GB now) there shouldn't be as much need to use the flash memory for a pagefile or something of the sort. I'm not even using 64 GB on my phone (most of it is music which is just going to be read from) and that's what comes standard on most flagship devices these days.
I suspect that a lot of this used flash would still outlast the expected lifespan of the device for most people. I can even see the recycling companies using this technique themselves to sell the recycled chips in different bins based on use. The article doesn't describe the extent to which people are getting worn out flash memory, and I suspect it's not a particularly big issue.
It's probably not that simple. Some people who don't care are going to use proxies to get around the block. Also, you don't need to be a member of a website in order for them to be able to build a profile of you and your information. You probably have friends and acquaintances who are members that will gladly supply some information about you in fairly innocuous manners such as tagging you in photos or indicating a shared work history.
Even if you follow GDPR and are compliant, all it takes is one data breach for that information to be available to whomever wants to hoover it up. Banks have all manners of security regulations and take various other precautions themselves, but about 4,000 are still robbed every year in the U.S.
As long as the data is valuable, someone will try to find a way to obtain it. I'm sure that in 5 years we'll be complaining about the various legal loopholes in these laws that have rendered them toothless for some reason.