They do, just in a different sub. Most seem to be in hotels though. And they don’t stay in one place very long.

Having played a lot of raft with my kids, I can say I never would have thought of it for this. But looking back, yeah, there is a good deal of world building going on.

I don’t debate that people should have distaste for nazi tatoos. But illegal, I would say no, that is clearly too far in my book.

As for dolls satiateing anyone. I never intended to suggest they do. I asked, do we have evidence that they cause harm. And if not, how do we decide what should be banned despite a lack of evidence proving it harmful.

As for the requirement being the same as a ban. It’s really not. Cause just .ike they are doing, they can sell various parts separately, and let the user assemble. That is really hard to enforce. My suggestion isn’t perfect, but it is easier to enforce.

There are two very obvious peices that show the government side is lieing… 1 - a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, said … 2 - Then the agent “holstered” his fire arm

The main requirement to be a spokesperson for anything in this administration is to lie. And ICE has orders to escalate, not descalate.

See now that brings up a good question. Is there any evidence that shows that child like dolls lead to an increase in abuse of children? If so, then this is a bad example for the personal freedom vs percieved threat question. But I am not sure I have heard of any such evidence. Maybe it’s just neutral. That said, whether it be this, or the right to do drugs in your own home, or the right to assisted suicide, or even the right to alcohol. The question I am asking is, where is the line between needing to have evidence versus having percieved evidence?

I really don’t understand what you are saying. I was in fact looking to open a discussion on a personal freedom angle. But the specific topic here was just what got me thinking about it. “A guy with a megaphone”. I really have no idea what that is referring to.

I did suggest that all sex toy type products could maybe be required to have some dimension that clearly marks the item as representing an adult. That would be my suggestion. But I am still curious where people draw the line on personal freedom vs something that isn’t proven to be harmful. Drugs and such are another good example. Should people be allowed to do whatever dtugs they want, as long as they don’t drive or something. Alcohol actually follows that example. Guns do to. Lots of ways to frame the debate.

I can see how this whole topic can be kind of tricky. Not letting a free citizen have sex with a child like doll is kind of like arresting someone for thinking about committing a crime. I am generally of the belief that people should be free to do as they please as long as what they do doesn’t impinge on other people’s rights and such. But this is one of those border cases. Making it illegal without proof that it leads to crimes is questionable. But waiting for the proof means some children were abused, which is unacceptable as well.

Also, a guy could just buy one of those things that is lower torso and upper legs only. Nothing on it implies an age. So he can think of it as a child in his head. Yet making those illegal seems a stretch. Maybe it would have to be something like all sex dolls need to include enough parts to clearly distinguish them from children? But even that would be hard to truely define.

Somewhere close enough to the equator do have a decent amount of sun all year. But also close enough to mountains with snow and lakes and oceans. Then I would build a massive climate controlled dome. From that dome I would build high speed trains forme to get to the other places in about 15 minutes. I don’t like humidity or too much heat, but I do like a lot of sun and water. Snow is great for hot tubbing.

Read what you posted. The context is saying that they don’t know for sure what % of the population knew, and they lay out some arguments supporting both sides. You used the link as if it proved the population didn’t know. But that clearly isn’t what it says.

My point wasn’t that the link proved the opposite of your opinion, it was that the link doesn’t prove your opinion. That is a different bar.

The word “however” basically means “in contrast to the previous sentence”. It exclusion doesn’t change the meaning of the quote. It simply shortens it by allowing the exclusion of the previous sentence. I am not disputing that some experts believe the population didn’t know. I am disputing that the link proves that the consensus of experts believe the population didn’t know. That is how you presented the link, with obvious intent to mislead anyone who didn’t read it into thinking it supported as fact that the population didn’t know.

I don’t know the full details of that check, but I doubt it. The key peice where these checks fail is checking that the person standing in front of you is who they say they are. The person they claim to be will pass all the checks. Verification of identity mostly relies on photo ID, which isn’t all that hard to fake, or even to get legitimately.

Sounds like you forgot to consider the energy cost of developing each AI model. Developing and maintaining a model is vastly more energy intense than 3d game dev. Keep in mind that you can ship a 3d game and ramp down gpu use for dev. But an AI model has to be constantly updated, mostly by completely retraining. Also, noone was clamoring to build massive data centers just to develope one game. Yet they are for one model.

You’re both right. The extreme hype means it isn’t yet all that useful. But it doesn’t mean it won’t get there. Once it is there, they won’t need to hype it as much.

Because I could be an employer if I had some hussle, and I couldn’t spot a fake social security card to save my life. I believe the employer files the I-9, and if the gov says it’s fine, they are off the hook. That is why people say that illegal aliens pay taxes. Cause they often do, under someone elses social.

Wait, what are you claiming Wikipedia is saying?

“many historians argue that Germans were provided information explicit enough to indicate that the Jewish people were being massacred”

I will agree that historical data is not always an accurate predictor of future events. But in this case we are talking not about what will happen, but about would the administration’s future actions be influenced by the possibility of people attacking transformers. It is reasonable to say that in the past, similar administration’s didn’t worry about similar things, so it is unlikely that the current administration will either.

The root of the issue is allowing officer to lie in order to deprive people of thier rights.

He knew he had nothing, he was just trying to get a confession by saying it was a 100% lock. The cameras wouldn’t matter as much if lieing like that was illegal.

Trump is going to get his armed resistance one way or another I guess.

Only vaguely related… switching to magnets makes me think of top gun.
Officer: [in the midst of the MIG battle] Both Catapults are broken, sir. Stinger: How long will it take? Officer: It’ll take ten minutes. Stinger: Bullshit ten minutes! This thing will be over in two minutes! Get on it!

La cocuracha (or however it is spelled)

Your simple point isn’t the mic drop you think it is. You seem to think this administration would care about maintaining order in every city block through the night. They would create green zones for themselves with power and such, but the rest would be on thier own each night, and probably only minorly managed during the day even. Workers and whoever they need would have to go through security to get into the green zones to work for food. This playbook has already been written and perfected over centuries.