Weird to decide that you have to choose to be mad at one party or the other, and that getting mad at one party somehow indicates that you are less mad at the other party.

Weird to make this comment in response to perfectly valid criticism of Google by the EFF.

Also, it's cryptocurrency. There is literally no burden to prove that this money was donated, or what "charity" even means in this context.

A 3-minute limit is sensible. Hauling someone off to jail because they spoke for a few seconds too long is tyrannical.

You should want better out of the society you live in. Even if you disagree with this farmer, ask yourself if he would have seen the same consequences if he went over the limit speaking in support of this Datacenter (spoiler: of course he wouldn't have).

Do you really want to live in a world where people are creatively charged with trespassing, not because of actual malicious action, but because they said something that the powers that be didn't like?

They did not ask him to leave, and he refused. They counted down the seconds he had the floor, and ordered his arrest the moment he went over the allotted time.

I don't know if you've ever been to a Town Hall before, but this is absolutely ridiculous. When you go over your time, you can either ask for more time or be told that you are done.

You shouldn't be arrested unless you intentionally refuse to conclude your time, or if you create a disruption. He did neither.

They arrested him because they didn't like what he had to say, and they want to send a harsh message to anyone else who dares speak out against Datacenters.

This is an egregious violation of First Amendment rights.

I'm not going to address whether what happened was completely right, or the merits of the underlying discussion. But this is not a case of a poor dirt farmer shocked at being arrested. I'd be very surprised myself if he didn't at least think that was a possible outcome (and would not presume to suggest that it was intended in any way whatsoever, obviously being arrested would be detrimental to his cause!).

According to that article, he went over time, left the podium, had some words with the council and police, then was handcuffed and escorted out.

The police say that he was asked to leave by the council and refused. Then he was asked to leave by the police and also refused. At that point he was arrested for trespassing. I see no reason to doubt this version of events.

Asking him to leave sounds like an overstep, depending on what he said to them. But if it happened as that article described, it's probably not a First Amendment issue, definitely not an egregious violation.

I apologize for doing independent research on the topic. In the future I'll be sure to stick to the bits of the linked article that I can see.

There was a reddit post with this video, and the poster claimed that he refused to leave the podium after his time was up. Not saying that is true, but it sounds different than "spoke a few seconds too long"

https://www.reddit.com/r/ObscurePatentDangers/comments/1shsu...

It shows the full context. Yes, he went over his time, he talked over requests to stop, and then approached the front area. He was asked to leave the area, did not, and so the behavior was halted in favor of pre-established rules.

Yes, I’m in favor of free speech, and think more time should be allotted, but does his direct use of extra time impact those who will then not get to speak?

It’s the lines in the sand that are the hardest to draw.

I wasn't even trying to make any claims about the statement because I have no idea if the poster was even there. My mere point was that "there may be more to the story than what was posted on the 404 link".

And now someone posted the full video so you can just watch that and not need to rely on "grossly dishonest" posts.

"My mere point"

Again lying.

"not need to rely on "grossly dishonest" posts"

Talk about melodramatic ... I wasn't relying on your post.

The video shows that many people made unwarranted assumptions. That doesn't excuse you flat-out lying about what your link said.

I won't respond further on this dead post.

While running the red light is still dangerous, running it as soon as it turns red is unlikely to cause an accident. It's still ticketable, and if a cop sees it happen, they should make a stop and issue a ticket.

If you are distracted, or time the yellow light badly, and you have to make a decision on whether to lay on the horn and run the red light as soon as it changes, or slam your brakes and try to avoid running through the intersection, you're already in a position where you're going to have to commit a moving violation, and you don't need the threat of automatic monetary penalties guiding your judgement on which move to make.

There are situations where slamming the brakes creates a more serious hazard than running the red light, but the red light cameras only ticket you for running the red light. Why create an artificial preference for one hazard over the other, rather than trust the driver to drive defensively in these situations?

The cameras don't even need to go away; they just need a human in the loop to apply these tickets rationally. Maybe don't ticket the driver who barely missed yellow, but do ticket the driver who blew through the red with zero regard for the rules. Make sure these rules are understood by drivers, so that they don't fear automatic enforcement more than they do bodily harm to themselves and others, but still think twice about ignoring the rules of the road.

That's distasteful, sure, but objectively, people over-18 are not children.

Basic recordkeeping laws should make it easy to ensure that everyone involved is of age, even if they're sucking on a pacifier, wearing a diaper, and saying "goo goo ga ga".

CP statutes also deal with "simulations" of underage participants.

While the loss of secrecy between you and the LLM provider is a legitimate risk, the point of the article was that you should only use vetted RNGs to generate passwords, because LLMs will frequently generate identical secure-looking passwords when asked to do so repeatedly, meaning that all a bad actor has to do is collect the most frequent ones and go hunting.

The loss of secrecy between you and the LLM only poses a risk if the LLM logs are compromised, exposing your generated passwords. The harvesting of commonly-generated passwords from LLMs poses a much broader attack surface for anyone who uses this method, because any attacker with access to publicly available LLMs can start mining commonly generated passwords and using them today without having to compromise anything first.