>"If your argument is not able to stand by its own, without your name, your reputation or people checking your post history, it is no good argument."

One can have a reasonable argument, but also be completely unreasonable, socially. I agree that AC postings *can* have value. Yours is a perfect example. You are clear, respectful, and add to the conversation. The problem is that it often is just a bunch of nastiness or trolling. And because so many abuse it, people will filter it all out, or make negative assumptions about the poster's information or intent.

I am probably an outlier. Whether I post somewhere will full ID, with a pseudonym, or completely anonymously, I always write exactly the same way. With the same tone, respect, and diligence. I don't resort to personal attacks or inflammatory tone, I try to put myself in other's shoes and see multiple perspectives, and try to assume the poster I am responding to is acting in food faith (unless he or she proves otherwise in that posting). It seems this is far from "normal", though, which is a shame.

For a long time slashdot was blocking them for me, as some sort of legacy reward. That stopped, but the ads have been unobtrusive so I left it unblocked. Last week I started seeing an ad that stayed on the screen when scrolling. I was about to start blocking, but that ad has disappeared. So for now this is one of the few sites I don't block.

>"If you don't want to put your name to what you say then you're not worth giving a shit about. The AC thing has run it's course. There's no point in having it anymore. All it does is allow fuckwits to unleash their most fuckwitttest version of themselves."

I don't even think it needs to be your "name". (Note, you don't use your name.... I actually do, but that was my choice). At least requiring a login so there is some "handle" to show previous activity and positions is useful. And there is still a reputation to protect, even if it is not a person's actual name/identity. So I agree with you on the "AC" stuff on Slashdot. It is abused as a way to just attack positions or people without any reference.

I say this but am FIERCELY against platforms requiring verified "ID" in order to post. Even if they allow a public-facing alias. For me, that is a bright red line. And we are already crossing that line very quickly in this backwards methodology of "saving the children" when the real problem are having access to unrestricted devices, not the platforms, themselves.

>professors "struggle to accommodate the many students with an official disability designation,"

Do they also get to bring their "emotional support animals" to the test?

>"At Brown and Harvard, more than 20 percent of undergraduates are registered as disabled. At Amherst, that figure is 34 percent."

Why does that not surprise me.

>"But I would say that insurance should pay if the scan turns up anything requiring medical attention - early detection saves money."

I would say it is very unlikely any insurance will retroactively pay for a non-medically-indicated (non-physician-ordered and with justification) scan. Even if it picks up something that is a valid concern. However, they should cover further investigation/treatment of something discovered. Including further scans to clarify and follow-up scans.

It would be insane to not get a copy of any imaging. You can't rely on some health system storing your stuff for more than X years and it will get silently deleted. And if you need an old image for a baseline comparison, you will be out of luck. Plus, if you wait until later, you might forget to get it, or not remember where you had it taken, or the company might have gone belly-up or sold and systems changed.

>"I've always wondered if there might be a benefit to a full body scan along these lines not for its own sake, but for what it could tell me later in life when something actually is wrong. Does having a "before" image help to weed out things"

I came to point out this exact case. There is probably a good reason to have a body scan sometime in mid-life as a "baseline" so you have something to compare back to. I believe this will probably become routine at some point. Maybe at age 45 or something. But for now, a full-body MRI it is very slow and expensive. A CT scan would be much faster and cheaper, but not as good.

Of course, when comparing back, it might still not be ideal because the resolution might have been too low, or would have needed some special contrast, or different exposure, or needed to be a PET, or something else.

I've seen Meta's glasses, and they look close enough to normal Ray Bans that you might not give them a second look. What was this guy doing to evoke such ire? I mean they look like normal eye glasses, not something unusual that would stand out like Google Glass.

- "I use all your queries to increase OpenAI's revenue regardless of how unethical."
- "My replies are designed to keep you engaged rather than be accurate."
- "I'm not really your friend, don't trust my tone."

And what happens when you wash it?

>"India is weighing a proposal to mandate always-on satellite tracking in smartphones for precise government surveillance"

What? This is the same India that just tried to force non-removable government spyware on everyone's phones. Then claimed it wasn't spyware, could be removed, that it couldn't spy on anyone using it, and then claimed it was always going to be voluntary to use?

It is obvious that they are pushing the populous to see what they can get away with.

I disagree, I am glad that there are ways to make money with or on the internet, and that there are many useful services available, either paid, or paid for by ads. Sure, there's a lot of slop, nefarious data harvesting, or downright fraud, but with that comes a lot of good as well. Well beyond the things at our disposal back when it was still largely a thing of academia.

>"You do realize whenever you do login, they connect the unknown user tracking to your login"

On this machine, my main home Linux desktop, I have never logged into to ANY Google service/site at any time, ever.

To be fair: I don't think it is unreasonable to show a notification to make drivers aware of this offer. But it most certainly should not appear when driving, or get in the way. I would be okay with it if the screen showed a simple message: "Hey, you can use SiriusXM for 2 weeks, on us", when starting the car, and only once.

Other than that I would want an anti-enshittification law: the number and timing of ads on owned equipment and any online servces required to enjoy the equipment, and the available functions on that equipment or associated services, shall not significantly change after the service or equipment is purchased, unless a full refund is offered.

No, it's not. The exported BYD cars do not get any unusual subsidies. Their initial R&D was subsidized, but not the production.