Face id is putting a very good camera very close to your face and asking it if the face inches from the screen and stationary with respect to the camera matches exactly one face.

Facial recognition is asking a worse camera if a moving partially obscured face is one of 338M legal residents and citizens or potentially millions of illegal folks. Since this is inherently an incredibly harder task it doesn’t take much to make it impossible.

You use AI glasses which claim to identify aliens because you can use its constant false positives to pretend to be following the law.

Notably the risks aren’t simply that this will identify the undocumented its that it will provide a pretext to disappear almost anyone who isn’t white.

The question is does any given non-white person look enough like one of over 10M people to get falsely flagged given agents a pretext to remove almost anyone they stop. Facial recognition of one person against a large enough database will almost always provide at least on possible match this is especially true if it matches against possible aliens and not against possibly aliens and citizens. EG a query of both will likely turn up Betty Sue Smith is herself and maybe a possible match with Known Deportable but a search against only aliens may return only Known Deportable with agents dismissing any claim by Betty that her ID must be fake.

What do you think what you posted even means? covering most of what it is using to identify is already going to make it drastically more difficult to match

Actually prohibition drastically increases price, perceived risk, and social acceptability all of which decrease usage. If you mean that prohibition doesn’t make everyone stop using that would be a duh. Society would greatly benefit from decreased usage alone due to decreased medical productivity and deaths…

The most famous “failed” prohibition on this side of the water in the US initially decreased alcohol usage to 30% of its former usage immediately prior to prohibition. Eventually it rose to ~60% but didn’t recover to anything like prior levels until prohibition was ended.

There is another notable factor though. This allows all current addicts to continue consuming their legal fix which can be sold at the corner store but incentivizes all these multitudes of legal avenues to shut out new customers or be shut themselves. These new customers those born from 2008-2017 will initially be a small market for any black market sales probably poorly served unlike the market created by prohibition. If less of these folks initially get hooked early there is statistical reason to believe far fewer of them ever will. By the time those born in 2018-2027 reach maturity between 2036-2045 many of the older folks will be dead and the generation above them will have a much lower prevalence of smoking.

Exactly there are no legal places out and about to smoke so people smoke at home then rather than feeling energetic and pugnacious they are mellow and sleepy so they have neither the need nor desire to drive.

As we speak imbeciles are trying to ruin this by developing testing designed to harass minorities on the side of the road and test whether the have smoked within several days instead of several hours. Soon you may face driving while brown charges for having smoked yesterday because testing cannot accurately measure impairment or recency of usage.

Weed + cars doesn’t seem to be a big problem in a state where legal weed is everywhere unlike alcohol.

A great deal of alcohol is consumed out late at night in places one is likely to drive to and from. Almost all accidents happen to people who are plastered not least of which because drunk people get increasingly confident and simultaneously incapable of judging their ability.

Worse drunk people even quite drunk people can reasonably pilot a car which is why most DUIs are given only after hundreds miles of drunk drinking.

People’s false confidence is rewarded right up until they go to jail or kill someone.

Weed rarely produces the degree of impairment and when it does you aren’t going anywhere. Also since there are no legal venues to smoke it you are most commonly at home

Only insofar as its too vague to mean anything

Traitors helped Nazis round up and murder both targeted groups and those who would resist.

You are talking about surface tension. The importance parameter is speed not height and “like concrete” is a drastic simplification as both behave very differently on impact.

Notably whereas high divers have reached speeds of 60 mph the Artemis II splashed down at around 1/4 that speed a speed you too can obtain by jumping from about 10 feet up.

Yes. Dude who created one of the most useful projects in software history in large part because of pragmatic decision making makes a pragmatic decision and Joe Rando says “Must be in the pockets of big AI!” because he can’t grasp any singular aspect of a complex issue. Can’t even hold in his head a tiny number of things just vomits crap over the internet. That person needs to spend a lot more time reading and thinking and less typing.

Unlike brilliant people like you who have created nothing one millionth the importance of Linux

how the fuck do you launch a store without a “shopping cart” feature did 20 business fucks pay themselves to suck each other off whilst one intern wrote the store?

But I thought we should all move out of expensive states to live in cheap states if we can’t afford to live in the good areas!

https://www.occrp.org/en/project/corruptistan-azerbaijan/how-to-build-yourself-a-stealth-lobbyist-azerbaijani-style

What lawmakers listening to Shaffer didn’t know was that the Caspian Studies Program she headed at Harvard was set up in 1999 through a $1 million grant from the US Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce and a consortium of oil and gas companies led by Exxon, Mobil, and Chevron, all of which had commercial interests in the region. The chamber of commerce is a pro-Azerbaijan pressure group whose Board of Directors includes a vice president of SOCAR, the Azerbaijan state-owned energy company, and top lobbyists for BP and Chevron.

Supported by an overseas regime and an assorted network of overt and undercover lobbyists, she used oil money to build her academic credentials, then in turn used those credentials to promote Azerbaijan’s agendas through Congressional testimony, dozens of newspaper op-eds and media appearances, countless think tank events, and even scholarly publications.

She’s still doing it. Brenda Shaffer

Shaffer first walked into Congress in 2001 to testify before the House of Representatives’ Committee on International Relations.

She was introduced as “the director of the Caspian Studies Program and a post-doctoral fellow in the international security program at the Belfort [Belfer] Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government”.

Addressing lawmakers, she asked them to repeal a section of the Freedom Support Act that barred direct US aid to the Azerbaijani government. “They have extended their hand to the US. They have huge expectations that the policy of this country is based on some sort of morality and high ideals,” she told them, and reinforced this in written testimony she also submitted.

Challenged about Azerbaijan’s democratic record, she replied: “There is a lot of room for improvement in terms of democratization. However, every six months, every year, things are getting better and better.”

What lawmakers listening to Shaffer didn’t know was that the Caspian Studies Program she headed at Harvard was set up in 1999 through a $1 million grant from the US Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce and a consortium of oil and gas companies led by Exxon, Mobil, and Chevron, all of which had commercial interests in the region. The chamber of commerce is a pro-Azerbaijan pressure group whose Board of Directors includes a vice president of SOCAR, the Azerbaijan state-owned energy company, and top lobbyists for BP and Chevron.

Fossil fuel is incredibly well financed profitable well explored. The tiny modicum of public and private money that went into renewables didn’t stop any otherwise profitable exploration or expansion of fossil fuels.

Iran had leverage since its resources began to be exploited. We could have spent a lot more on renewables decades ago that would in fact have blunted that stick. Instead we worked to make fossil fuels more valuable and thus hand them more leverage then we swung a stick at their head.

6. It doesn’t scale. Where the problematic economic demographic is 50%+ percent of the pop and 70% live in cities no substantial portion effected could go live in all the Guthries in the nation. People are concentrated for reasons as old as civilization.
7. It often wouldn’t help. Outside of shelter and taxes most goods don’t vary much or all by market and wages do.

One could find yourself spending an overlarge portion of your money on rent in an urban market move for cheaper rent and find the difference in wages makes up the difference in rent and now you need to afford everything else on less total wages.

8. Cheaper markets have worse services and safety nets. Those who already rely on good medial benefits in urban centers in blue states would find little savings in moving into the boondocks in their own states and would lose more in health care alone than they gain in rent moving to bumfuck

How can the same folks who can’t afford to live afford to emigrate again?

I’m not a nationalist I’m a realist. This is why I voted for Harris and support armed forces to enforce a truce in Gaza and no further military aid to Israel.

You can feel however you like about the choices you have in front of you are still morally obliged to pick the least bad even if you aren’t happy with either but extremely simple principals.

We fight their ability to seize ballots they don’t think should be counted in the courts before one ballot gets misdirected and get orders forcing them not to do this. If they do it we fight to get those ballots back in play before the election is considered closed. If they succeed in fixing the election by seizing ballots we refuse to accept the results.