But that's the point, circumvent democracy, to set the stage for techno-fascism. The citizen has no rights which the state is bound to respect.

By all means.

For example the vast majority of the UK residents is against the ongoing support and complicity of the UK in the genocide of Palestinians, to which the government orchestrated the whole operation to turn the protest into act of terrorism (!).

Etc.

There are always going to be reasons for human review of code written by a LLM. Furthermore, for both safety and control, we will want human readable code from LLMs. These "needs" and "wants" can't be eliminated, at least while humans are in control.

Very good example. Translating the answers is not the same as having to think up the correct answers.

Unfortunately, many of these "protections" don't know what is a bot or a human. Many clueless websites are often just blocking huge swaths of legitimate readers and customers.

> This just sounds like they are not good at using Zig.

That's odd, because of the visibility of team Bun using the language, one would think they could get whatever help and guidance they asked for. Seems weird for team Bun to complain about crashes, leaks, and bugs if they could have what they are doing wrong explained to them or their issues fixed in a timely manner.

It's really surprising that natural plant-based gums have so many microplastics in them too. Maybe there is something else going on about the manufacturing process.

I disagree with that, because the teenager should be the parent's responsibility, regardless of how smart or savvy they are. Parents should be talking to their children, communicating what their and society's expectations are. If the parents are attempting to exert technical control over their children, by home router for example, there should be websites or computer shops they can go to. If the parents don't care or are not smart enough to keep up with their teenager, then no type of state mandated gimmick will either.

Teenagers, at that level of intelligence or are that determined, will find ways to circumvent whatever control mechanisms a parent or school is attempting to use. At some point, it is a matter of the teenager respecting their parents and rules. Same for if you told a teenager do not drink and drive. You can setup all kinds of technical barriers to block drunk teenagers from driving, but if they are that "smart", those committed to bad behavior or law breaking will find ways.

But again: if all the kids are on social media, is it enough for "good parent" to tell their kid that they should not go there?

From what I remember from being a kid myself, it definitely is not.

Unknown associations and free speech are too scary. Neuralink and continual surveillance for the win. Pre-crime units at the ready.

Well, if it is some gibberish between you and friends the state doesn't understand, they will have you silently and continually investigated by a pre-crime unit. You and your friends could be committing "thought-crime".

But I thought crime---

- He said thought crime! bots start firing the machine guns

It is definitely not really "for the children", when legislation is aimed at all adults, and not specifically for parents. It is parents who should be responsible for the actions of their children and given the software tools to manage their online access. This arguably can be done with government sponsored and specific help for parents; software, websites, and shops with IT personnel.

These measures taken by the EU and other government entities has always been about surveillance, censorship, control, and eliminating freedom of speech and association. People need to keep calling out this continual deception and attempt to erode freedoms.