psychiatrist24

In the case of the supermarket, the person who is banned could pay somebody else to buy stuff for them. In an extreme case, that somebody would have to be the government preventing the person from starving.

In general I think private businesses should be allowed to decide who they want to do business with.

In the case of Twitch, the question to me is what is the contract the users enter with Twitch - what promise does Twitch make? If it doesn't promise anything, users invest at their own risk.

Same way as in other weather.

1.5 miles is doable by bicycle. Bridges or tunnels can be built for crossing roads and freeways.

Of course that supermarket should be entitled to ban the misbehaving person from their store.

To turn the story around, why should a business that takes it on itself to provide for a remote community be punished for it by forcing them to accept unruly customers?

Should be easy to check by comparing applications for immigration.

4Head??

I rather consider your kind of argument to be hand wavy. "Some people simply have no options or opportunities whatsoever". Can you provide some actual examples? And what is even the point to talk about those hypothetical people? Since nothing can be done, their situation can never ever change, there is no point in discussing it.

Yes there may be some people who are too sick to work. Everybody else can go look for another job. And the ones who are too sick to work probably have other people taking care of their kids already. So those other people can go look for another job.

A deep learning network consists of hundreds of thousands of nodes, and it is becoming more (I didn't look up the actual number).

You can show the weights of the connections between the nodes, but that wouldn't really help anybody to understand it.

Time and money can be managed. If you don't have enough money, look for a better job (it might help against the time issues, too).

To change schools, you might have to move anyway, so you might as well look for a job somewhere else.

If you really have no other options, then maybe AI that detects emotions is the least important of your worries.

This is not an issue of concentrated private wealth. Most schools are run by governments.

You are right, citizens need to be empowered against their governments. But regulations give governments more power, not less.

And if you say the majority of consumers doesn't care about some issue, what makes you think democracy could provide a solution?

You also don't need that many feet to create an alternative school. You just need enough children to justify an extra building and teachers, or supplement the home schooling.

I'm also an European, and I disagree strongly. Not everybody in Europe is a socialist.

The only thing that guarantees fair treatment is competition (so that for example a worker can quit and work somewhere else). Government rules just breed corruption and inefficiency that harms everybody.

Schools are already shit in many ways. What is your answer to that? Just wait out the years and hope for the right politicians to be elected and change it? They might give your kids diversity training and teach them they are unworthy scum. They might deny evolution theory. They will mess up your kids. And all you say is "nothing I can do"?

I never said it is simple. You still live in a free country, though. What on earth could deprive you of all options?

Can you explain what goes on in human brains?

Just don't send your kids to a school that uses such technology, and don't work for employers that use it.

If you cry for regulation, it is a sign that government has too much power. But more regulation gives governments even more power.

Make sure that your citizens have basic rights. Obviously being judged by an algorithm can not make for fair laws. Governments can use algorithms for their assessments, but their has to be a line of appeal.