Surprisingly, last week tonight was about this topic. It's so much more ubiquitous than even I thought. Scary stuff.

https://videosift.com/video/Facial-Recognition-Last-Week-Tonight-with-John-Oliver-HBO

these people reference 'freedom' as a reason for their desire to become agents of misery. what they have yet to grok is their freedom is reliant on other people. many of those, who might be sicked and/or killed with this failed recognition.

their freedom ends where other's fists begin.

y'all heard of pandora's box? facial recognition is evil - in every sense of the word - that if it becomes reality, it will become a nightmare.

'covid marys' is a nice term. typhoid mary was a carrier of a deadly pathogen - herself be unaffected - that spread the bacteria that infected 53; killed 3 (one of those killed was the daughter of the woman who hired her as a cook). the parallel is obvious.

What about the Rioters and Protesters of last 2 weeks? Do you support using facial recognition to identify these irresponsible inconsiderate ignoramuses and create a database any hospital can use to deny them Covid care?

That's why I support using facial recognition to identify these irresponsible inconsiderate ignoramuses and create a database any hospital can use to deny them Covid care, and that responsible people who get infected can use to identify and sue any Covid Marys.
If they insist on putting everyone at risk over their belief that it's not dangerous, they should be forced to live with any repercussions that might arise.

Team Bloomberg's story, after Super Tuesday, was that he'd done very well at boosting name recognition. As they were being presented as data wonks, I wondered whether they could have gotten even more name recognition, for a fraction of the price, by - say - releasing a single with Kanye, or riding down a golden escalator.

What would you do if it was a bolt of lightning that was the cause?

We Didn’t Start the Fire -Billy Joel

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

It's not about throwing money at a problem. It's about giving someone trust, inspiration and recognition.

What drivel.

Baker made his point, you just recognize the idiocy of it so claim he must mean something else, but he means to have you believe exactly what he said....and he means to be instructing people from the pulpet on how to vote, something that until recently was considered illegal, but today it's fine so long as he's saying "vote Trump".

Churches aren't non profits, they simply claim that status because they are protected from having that status removed because "religion". There is NO scrutiny, not higher scrutiny. Name one recognized religion that's lost it's non profit status.
Edit: BTW, From the IRS-Churches that meet the requirements of IRC Section 501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS. (Hardly more scrutiny, since there is no scrutiny at all)

Non profits don't pay their leaders millions, buy them multiple jet planes, build hundred million dollar buildings, or keep billions in assets while claiming to not be able to fulfill their mission statement for lack of funding. Preachers beg directly from the pulpit for money for their 5th jet plane God said they need... they don't get the money from side hustles, although they get money that way too, but that's their personal income (although it's often laundered through the church to avoid taxes).

Religions are non prophets....meaning they have, and follow no prophets as practiced.

Warren could be good. I'm not 100% sold that she can play the political game particularly well -- the "Pocahontas" thing should have been pretty gracefully manageable, but she kinda fumbled there a bit. Still, if the Democrat primary system can avoid being the train wreck it was leading up to 2016, I think she could go through that and prove that she's got what it takes. So, maybe.

I love Sanders, but he's divisive because of the "Socialist" thing, which is still quite a scary word for Cold War-era people. I think that is surmountable by calmly explaining exactly what his brand of Democratic Socialism means, but there's always going to be that easy Fox News narrative against him. So between that, age, and other factors, he's not a slam dunk.

Obama? I'm assuming you mean Michelle? Name recognition yes. Firsthand political experience, not so much. I don't think I've ever heard her say anything about wanting to get into politics directly.

I concur about Avenatti.

I hope the D's don't screw this up. All of these celebrity / political celebrity candidates seem risky and hit or miss to me. Might be better to go with a relative unknown -- somebody who's been through a hairy campaign or two (because we know Trump will attack and try to rattle) and knows how to walk the line between giving those attacks legitimacy by responding to them and seeming too milquetoasty by ignoring them. (Barack) Obama was quite good at having that calm outer demeanor while also having a quick wit and knowing when to get counter-jabs in. Seems like someone with those kinds of skills could really lure Trump into a bunch of pitfalls.

What about a celebrity politician like Warren, Sanders, or even Obama? They all have name recognition and experience.
Abonetti is like nominating Clinton, not exciting and a bit scary for many Democrats and independents, totally divisive, and a reason to go vote for Republicans. Please let's not make that mistake again.

I don't disagree, and we have much the same thing in practice if not by law with our native people's, they even have their own separate tribal police, courts, and laws. They are in many ways a different country inside our borders.
I agree, removing the disparities in lower education is far more desirable....but at least here we're doing the opposite, defunding public schools and programs that offer assistance like breakfast and lunch while also making it easier for affluent people to use public funds to pay for private schools, effectively defunding the public schools even farther.
That leaves us trying things like affirmative action in admissions to try to mitigate the continuing unfair, unequal opportunities lower income students face. Far from ideal, but better than another poke in the eye with a sharp stick, as my wife used to say....and she ought to know! ;-)

They might put the argument in different terms. Which do you prefer....giving admission advantages to aboriginal students in recognition of the piss poor opportunities they've had educationally, or give sentencing advantages to aboriginal criminals in recognition of the across the board piss poor opportunities they've had, recognizing that neither approach addresses the underlying problems, only the results of those long standing issues that simply are not being addressed at all.
What doesn't work is ignoring their lack of opportunities and expecting them to perform on par with other, non disadvantaged kids. That just gets you uneducated, pissed off adults with a chip on their shoulder and no prospects for improvement.

So.....until we actually get to work improving their overall situation, easier said than done, it behooves us to give a leg up to those trying hard to do it for themselves....no? Otherwise we're likely just perpetuating a cycle of criminality that hurts us all.

No, they aren't compelling in the least, they're obvious disingenuous propaganda, lies, and misdirection not worth debunking.....but you asked so here's your comments.....

First....
"catch and release" refers to a practice of releasing an immigrant to the community while he or she awaits hearings in immigration court, as an alternative to holding them in immigration detention.The migrants whom U.S. immigration enforcement agencies have allowed to remain in the community pending immigrant hearings have been those deemed low risk, such as children, families, and those seeking asylum.

There is no "hard-and-fast definition" of the phrase, which is pejorative. Rather, the phrase refers to a "collection of policies, court precedents, executive actions and federal statutes spanning more than 20 years, cobbled together throughout Democratic and Republican administrations."-Wiki

So he starts by lying about what catch and release is and who started the policies.

....Can send the asylum seeker to the interior until they've been adjudicated, which can be forever......
No, it can't be forever, and Trump/Republicans are doing all they can to extend the wait times. Obama did it to unaccompanied minors, he didn't separate families. Another lie. Funding immigration courts would solve it all, end separation and get everyone processed in a reasonable, legal timeframe....perhaps why Trump took that off the table.

Really, a Faux news talking head wants to deride someone's English.....Try Trump, he can't put a rational English sentence together.....ever.

Trump destroyed Daesh? I think Syria and Russia might disagree, as well as Daesh, which is still in existence.

Yes, the N Korea summit was a loss for us and a win for them. We gave massive concessions and granted them official recognition, and got vague unsecured promises to negotiate in the future in return.


You claim to not be a Trumpophile, but it's blatantly obvious that's a lie. Your bias is so thick and blinding perhaps you can't see through it.

The bit about the sunglasses was very surprising. Looks like my plan to avoid facial recognition needs some rework :-)

CIA is in control. They fund Google, FB and many others. Collecting your data. Do you thing 23andme doesn't funnel back to CIA? What about Apple finger recognition or now face recognition?

We are just slaves to their system and you feed it only to be used against you later if needed.

If a website wants to only publish about black on white crime, I'm fine with that, as long as they aren't saying they are publishing stories about crime in general. Specialization can be a good thing, allowing people to become an expert through time, repetition, and pattern recognition. Talking about all the other bad countries and dictators around the globe can be done by others, it's fine to focus your attention on one, which also happens to be the one we have the best ability to change(ie voting)