unbalancedevh

I don't think it said in the article, but I'd think that all of the data/evidence might be good to retain until all of the offender's appeals and related legal proceedings are finished.

After that, I think there's some reasonable level of effort that we should expect the government to have to make to only destroy what's illegal, but practically that might mean that other data gets destroyed as well. Maybe the owner can request specific things be saved or something like that; but it's likely to be something that needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The issue, of course, isn't how cameras can be used to help apprehend criminals. It's that they can be abused by people who have access to them, in ways we haven't even imagined yet. People don't trust that appropriate safeguards are in place, and it's not clear how to defend against abuses, or that it's even possible. In a society that supposedly prioritizes liberty, privacy, and innocence until proven guilty, such technology should be treated with maximum suspicion.

Rather, for all the other time when the power is working, you can use your generator for transportation!

This is like the on-line game Text Twist.

> Please invest in some happy backyard chickens

I guess that depends on your interpretation of "invest." I don't know of anybody who claimed to save money on eggs by raising their own chickens. It's more of a lifestyle decision than a financial one.

Two cases when I've received a bank check without being able to choose an alternative: 1) as payment of proceeds in a class-action lawsuit; 2) when I got a refund from my insurance provider after changing the terms.

These might not be very common, but they're still not really rare in society either.

> kakistocracy

New vocab word, thanks. The word's been around for a while, so I guess there's some solace in knowing that this isn't the first time. Hopefully this is just a speed-bump to progress, and not a long-term decline.

Understandable. Most wives don't like it when their husbands proposition others.

Reminds me of "Mr. Pine's Purple House"

> Agree with you on the foldables. God, no one wants that.

I think there are a lot of people who would love to have a smaller form-factor for when the phone is in their pocket, with a large screen for when it's being used. The current state-of-the-art might not be very good for foldable phones, but the demand is there, and that's what drives innovation.

> If you want to solve the problem, you need to go to the source.

Which is precisely why it's so short-sighted to try to solve your problem by "wiping out the entire Amazon jungle and replacing it with a world class high technology industry." If you're going to have a magic button to solve problems, then why not use it wisely, instead of propagating the spiral towards destruction?

> The simple reality is....

True -- there are no magic buttons. The reality is that people with wealth and power use them to take finite global resources and leverage them to ensure they they stay wealthy and powerful. That is implicitly not sustainable, as well as being questionably moral. It's not possible to avoid being part of the system, but you don't have to actively make it worse. You can advocate for fairer alternatives, or at least not wish for the destruction of entire major global ecosystems.

> If I had a button that would wipe out the entire Amazon jungle and replace it with a world class high technology industry, I wouldn't even think twice before pressing it.

I used to think this way, but I've come to realize that it's very short-sighted. It's not sustainable, and we're already seeing how unchecked industrialization over the last couple centuries is leading to unintended/undesirable effects on our health, and indeed the suitability of the environment we need to live in. Sure, those problems can be pushed onto future generations, and so far (maybe) we've been able to solve them. But if we care at all about humanity's ability to thrive, we need to be more careful.

In developed countries, nobody has to struggle anymore just to stay alive, which is a far cry from the way it was 200 years ago. Advancements now are along the lines of increasing entertainment, or quality of life. But enjoying a good life doesn't have to be a zero-sum proposition, and I think society should put a higher cost on the ability of wealthy people to use up irreplaceable natural resources for their own benefit.

I think it was "Smarter Every Day," but there's a YouTube channel where the guy went all-out in trying to design, source, and manufacture a simple grill scrubber 100% in the US, and failed. He got the product finished and on the market, but it was literally impossible to do it with 100% American content. IIRC, part of the problem was suppliers that lied about their sourcing, but that still represents the complete lack of availability of US sources.

Each new fire is a distraction from the chaos created by the previous one.

In the US anyway, calling yourself an "engineer" is only regulated if you sell your services to the public as one. Inside of a business, like a car manufacturer, the position title of "engineer" can be applied to any job at all, however the business wants.

As a degreed engineer myself, this was a bit jarring to me when I first entered the workforce, seeing co-workers who had never been to college calling themselves engineers. But fortunately I got over it.