Making private motor vehicles more accessible does hurt America's transportation system by increasing congestion and encouraging further cuts to public transportation, pedestrian and cycling infrastructure. It's an antiamerican move from an antiamerican terrorist.

So you hand picked the few and extremely uncommon jobs that actually had real time constraints and think you are smart?
Nope, you need to get better at arguing.

Lets go through those cases one by one:

A) Fire men spend 90% of their time training - which they get all the extra time they need. Yes, in a real emergency they need to hustle, but even then they use the slow is smooth, smooth is fast technique. They do not rush because you make mistakes when you rush.

B) Catching criminals is a slow methodical process, not chasing them. Except in TV. In TV, it is all about the car chase. But in real life it it about waiting for the phone records, DNA tests, fingerprint searches, people to call you back.

C) CPR is not a rush. You need to start right away, but then take your time and do it consistently, not in a hurry.

D) Burgers cook at a consistent time. You cannot decide to do it in half the time. If you try to cut it short, that gives food poisoning. The act of prep and assembly should be done well, not fast. Trying to rush it causes mistakes. Or low quality.

E) Judges routinely grant extensions but as long as the lawyer started the work at the appropriate time, again, it is not a rush. Unless someone forgot about it and tries to do it quickly.

F) The fact that you are unemployed and useless is on you. Not relevant to the discussion of people doing real work. Nor do I want to hire the guy that desires to sit on the couch and smoke pot. That guy, I fire.

1) Why are tests timed at all? The smart people usually finish early. Is more time helpful to anyone - or just the kids having problems answering the questions. Why not double the time and let everyone spend 10 minutes obsessing over the questions they do not understand.

2) Should we encourage professors and bosses to just be more accommodating. There is no good reason to let them be assholes and put arbitrary time limits. Good bosses keep their good employees happy - shouldn't professors do the same? Give them comfortable chairs, etc.

3) Perhaps this is a real issue. Are people getting more mental issues because of chemicals/plastics in the environments. Or could these problems have always existed and we just have better diagnosis - particularly for people that can afford good health care.

4) Are smart people more prone to psychological issues? I have heard intelligence goes along with anxiety. More brains = caring/obsessing more.

5) Did they get more time in High School? Or does this only happen in college? Perhaps we just do not notice it in high school because each class has fewer college rated people.

6) OK, lets say what everyone is thinking - they did not have disabilities, this is just a way of cheating. Of all the ways asshole rich people could try to cheat the system this seems more acceptable. We will not be able to stop rich assholery entirely and I would rather they get more time instead outright bribery.

7) Finally and most importantly - do you really think the grades are that important? Schools are about education and networking as well as proving your knowledge via grades. Quite a few people go to school to learn or make new connections, not to get a job. Especially for the really rich people. If your father has 100 million, you are not concerned about where being #1 in the class. You want to learn stuff and meet people, not get good grades. Perhaps the solution is to eliminate the grades entirely.

It's long past time we had a real debate about the law, too. Just because something has been the law for a long time, that doesn't necessarily mean it should remain the law as times change. Clearly there is a difference between the implications of casually observing someone as you pass them in a public street, when you probably forget them again a moment later, and the implications of recording someone with a device that will upload the footage to a system run by a global corporation where it can be permanently stored, shared with other parties, analysed including through image and voice recognition that can potentially identify anyone in the footage, where they were, what they were doing, who they were doing it with, and maybe what they were saying and what they had with them, and then combined with other data sources using any or all of those criteria as search keys in order to build a database at the scale of the entire global population over their entire lifetimes to be used by parties unknown for purposes unknown, all without the consent or maybe even the knowledge of the observed people who might be affected as a result.

I don't claim to know a good answer to the question of what we should allow. Privacy is a serious and deep moral issue with far-reaching implications and it needs more than some random guy on Slashdot posting a comment to explore it properly. But I don't think the answer is to say anything goes anywhere in public either just because it's what the law currently says (laws should evolve to follow moral standards, not the other way around) or because someone likes being able to do that to other people and claims their freedoms would be infringed if they couldn't record whatever they wanted and then do whatever they wanted with the footage. With freedom comes responsibility, including the responsibility to respect the rights and freedoms of others, which some might feel should include more of a right to privacy than the law in some places currently protects.

That all said, people who think it's cool to film other human beings in clear distress or possibly even at the end of their lives just for kicks deserve to spend a long time in a special circle of hell. Losing a friend or family member who was, for example, killed in a car crash is bad enough. Having to relive their final moments over and over because people keep "helpfully" posting the footage they recorded as they drove past is worse. If you're not going to help, just be on your way and let those who are trying to protect a victim or treat a patient get on with it.

FBI routinely hires people convicted of computer crimes and places them under extreme guidance.

As this is government work, I could see them wanting to hire someone that has proven hacking skills. But not as a subcontractor.

For what you ask?

For Christmas Presents to staff in my building, postman, etc.

All I need is their name. I can write it out ahead of time, put it in an envelope, write their name on the envelope and hand it to them in person. No one needs to know how much till they open the envelope. I can give out multiple ones to multiple people all privately.

But that is it. That is the only thing I do it for.

If my building were to set up a website to let me do this, I would probably stop writing checks. Give the postman cash.

Gotta be honest, every time someone collapses and is in distress, there are always a bunch of people who pull out their phones and start recording. As a first responder, it's just so gross that someone would think to start recording instead of pitching in or calling 911. Seriously, you may need to bare their chest to apply an AED or do compressions. It's quite embarrassing for the casualty for a lot of reasons. Give people some privacy. They're fellow human beings. We need to stop pretending like it's perfectly OK to film strangers in public. Legal? Sure. Should you be doing it? 9 times out of 10, no.

One thing I've learned from the past 10 years of supporting Windows 10/11 is it's almost always software. I had a problem with a keyboard doing runaway repeats on the Windows Hello PIN entry screen, and I swapped keyboards till I was blue in the face until I realized that it was the supplemental support software (SetPoint) which was causing the fault. Yes. Software is even screwing basic I/O devices now. It's a solved problem and software developers still manage to out-clever themselves into system instability.

It is sometimes hardware. I had some kernel panics on my new machine that black screened it. I ran MemTest86 and found out that the RAM was clocked down to 3800MT instead of the 5200MT it was supposed to be getting. It was failing on the first pass. Isolated it to the second channel pair. Blew out the slots. 90% Isopropyl on the sticks. Reinstall RAM. Done. Passes MemTest86 without a hitch, through multiple passes. Last time I checked, I did 4.

And I'm still getting black screens from memory exceptions. Just less often. The RAM is now fine. I had the problem because Windows is screwed up. The hardware fault made it worse, but the software is also fucked. (Last time it faulted was during a compile. I heard the POST beeper go off and thought "Oh no. Not again.")

Software people, ie: Linus, think it's hardware. Hardware people think it's software. Generally, these days, the hardware people are right. Hardware is very reliable, and I've rarely had a recent memory stick actually go bad.

Censorship is the GOVERNMENT preventing information from being published.

Citizens cannot engage in censorship. Corporations cannot engage in censorship - but they can request the government do so (i.e. sue you for saying something and try to get the courts to censor you).

When people refuse to support your beliefs, that is their legal right to do and not censorship. When people call you out for lying, that is not censorship.

I think that's very fair, but I don't think you can rule out the effect of social conformity.

What possible reason could you have for hiring contractors that have a record of hacking your organization?

I could see hiring people that hacked somebody else.

I could see hiring hackers as direct employees so you can keep a close watch on them.

But hiring a hacking organization as contract employees?

That person was either a) Bribed or b) a Moron.

They need to be fired to prevent them from hiring the same people tomorrow.

If you believe one side or the other is factually correct and the other is factually incorrect, then you drank someone's kool-aid and you should spit it out. Both "sides" use demonstrably false logic and reasoning in their arguments, but that doesn't mean those arguments aren't effective in convincing people to follow them. The fact is that the vast majority of people live their life on vibes and feeling, and not based on logic and reason. That's kind of the point of this article, after all. Logic and reason isn't as effective as appealing to someone's emotions.

Remember that a person who moves from a liberal city to a conservative town will invariably become more conservative in their opinions, and the opposite is also true. Most of what people say outwardly is not an expression of their actual beliefs, but what they believe will get them the most positive rewards from the people around them.

I got a bogus red light ticket once, and that was what convinced me to get a dashcam. That judge just took the cops' word for everything, so even a dashcam might not have helped, but it couldn't have hurt.

No, inflation is an expansion of the money supply. When the government prints more money than the population growth requires, banks lend more money at lower rates, people and businesses borrow more, and the surplus money chasing the same goods and services increases the demand and prices rise. That is economic inflation, my term, which is different from what laymen call inflation: some prices going up, as from tariffs or other taxes.