MacOS has its own barriers to calling itself a professional operating system. A good part of my job is forcing it to conform to basic enterprise system management practices.

Calling them names and leveling false accusations at them is kind of the exact opposite of ignoring them in peace. Unless that's what brings you peace, in which case you're the mentally ill fuckup in that equation.

Demanding that people who are different from you to explain themselves to your satisfaction before you're willing to leave them the hell alone is peak conservative asshole.

I can manufacture outrageous events from my imagination and then extrapolate that fiction into a nation-wide systemic problem too!

You're just starting to acknowledge the possibility?

Equating AI with Pac-Man isn't really the intellectual flex you probably think it is.

Except for that one time it was Lupus!

I think we all know nothing good ever came from that place.

Republicans end individual mandate.
Republicans let the subsidies expire.

"Why would the Democrats do this to the American people??"

One of my state's Republican senators is all-in on chemtrails and "Solar Radiation Modification" lunacy. It's curious how these are the same people who think humanity isn't capable of affecting the climate by burning fossil fuels and pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

So I'm to understand that what happens to students in college is "indoctrination" but a 4-month primer on the superiority of western civilization is not.

So they're giving pregnant monkeys Tylenol?

The reason for the rules seems like common sense to me. There is a certain distance needed to stop or change lanes when driving at highway distance. If the truck breaks down just over a hill, cars won't see it early enough unless the warning signals are put further back where they can be seen coming up the hill.

I seriously doubt that these rules were just shit someone made up. The NHTSA has so many studies regarding road regulations and guidance. They might be outdated for modern technology, and might be worse than newer alternatives - I don't doubt that hasn't been studied yet - but I would absolutely wager that there were studies done to justify the original numbers.

Furthermore, when congress delegated regulatory power to these agencies they included laws dictating how the rules needed to be determined, specifically so you can't have a bunch of political hacks changing them on a whim. Changes to the regulation need to be justified, and there needs to be comment period to gather any information and concerns that the agency itself might have overlooked, respond to the comments and incorporate any changes as appropriate. I don't want regulators to be able say "this is just some crap" and change rules every four years because they shoot from the hip. That means that changes take 1-3 years depending on how complicated and motivated the agency is, but it is worthwhile to end up with better regulations and avoid being constantly jerked around.

So far this is only affecting fools who pay up for such ridiculous features. The real problem comes when you have to pay to not have the thing you purchased controlled from afar.

> And, in that case, why add a new law versus just adding to the CCPA?
It is an amendment to the CCPA. Websites covered by the CCPA are required by law to honor the opt-out, and browsers are required to implement it.