Setting aside all of the other info that was leaked, knowing that the only profiles you see are actual, real people would be nice.

Way back when I last used a dating site, a significant percentage of profiles ended up being placeholders for scams of some sort.

In fact, several texted me a link to some bogus "identity verification" site under the guise of "I get too many fake bot profile hits"... Read the fine print, and you're actually signing up for hundreds of dollars worth of pron subscriptions.

If the dating app itself verified people were real, AND took reports of spam seriously, AND kept that information in a way that wasn't insecure, it'd be worth it.

If you are driving slower than other traffic, under the speed limit, and there is not a weather condition or a road impediment, that is also illegal in most (or all?) states.

> Do cyclists cause danger by using roadways?

They are also expected to move with traffic if they are taking up a lane. This is among the reasons non-motorized vehicles are not allowed on freeways.

Anyone moving slower than expected are intrinsically an impediment and a hazard, just the same as anyone speeding or otherwise driving recklessly.

Just to be clear - your statements about the law are all completely untrue, except for some states having a few specific highways with a “minimum speed”. For example, a highway near me says “left lane minimum speed 45mph” - where the speed of the road is 65.

Unless you can find some laws that specify that driving below the speed limit is illegal?

Impeding the flow of traffic is illegal. Most states have "if x number of vehicles are behind you, you are required to use pull offs or let vehicles pass" laws.

If a cop thinks your slow driving is dangerous they can absolutely write a citation. There are a bunch of laws that allow them to do this in most states.

Your simple search doesn't back up your position. I can assure you, going ~1MPH below the speed limit does not run afoul of that law.

I never claimed that it did.

Addendum: the margin of error on speed radar generally tends to be in the region of 2mph. You'll need to be a good deal slower than the speed limit before a police officer is likely to consider your driving to be an impairment.

It's very smart to have laws set up so that whether you are speeding or not, you can be pulled over for a moving traffic violation! That way, the police always have a legal pretense for a traffic stop.

Many states have laws against obstructing traffic. Most of them don't mention a specific minimum speed so enforcement is largely at the discretion of law enforcement officers. Personally I would like to see strict enforcement of those laws with tickets given out to anyone who intentionally impedes the flow of traffic.

Obstructing traffic is very different than “driving more slowly than the person behind you wants”. Obstructing means blocking, not making them wait 30 seconds for a good chance to go around.

If you are moving a large item that is fragile, are you allowed to go 35mph in a 45mph zone to reduce the risk of damaging the fragile item? Or is that illegal too? Or what if one of your passengers gets car sick easily?

In fact, there are some winding mountain roads in California where the speed limit is 55, but if you go that fast, you’re suicidal because there are no guard rails and very sharp turns. Occasionally, someone mildly suicidal will come up behind you. Is it illegal to drive 15mph in that 55 zone?

Safety is prioritized above speed, suggesting otherwise is unhinged and antisocial.

They should use the same fine schedule as speeding.

It ought to be just as lucrative for a cop to nab someone who's unreasonably stopping at a merge as it is to nab someone who's going a few over.

You don't go to court for tax avoidance. You do go to court for tax evasion.

It's tax evasion if you are found guilty, it's tax avoidance if you are found innocent.

"You are innocent until proven guilty". Now lets all build out our truth tables to check if what he said is accurate.

There's a few possible reasons this can happen.

First is that the side effect profile of one option is much better known or tolerated, so the doctor will default to it.

Second is that the doctor knows the insurance company / government plan will require attempting to treat a condition with a standard cheaper treatment before they will pay for the newer, more expensive option.

There's always the third case where the doctor is overworked, lazy or prideful and doesn't consider the patient may have some input on which treatment they would like, since they didn't go to medical school and what would they know anyway?

That's because backend-rendered sites need a shit load of caching. SPAs tend to just use APIs that aren't cached.

That's primarily because many SPAs aggressively prevent caching of all xhr responses using headers (which are ofc defined from the BE side)

And the reason for that is mainly to prevent edge cases and make sure people in CRUD apps see up-to-date content.

The experience with a no-cache max-age=0 server-rendered site would be very similar.

All of the headaches around custom routing code + restoration of state are pretty much obsolete wirh bfcache, introduced more than 5 years ago.

If you build a dynamic page and use HTTP headers to prevent caching, stop complaining about it. Most people making this argument want to offload dealing with external APIs to the frontend, and then complain about the result when no requirements around API response caching were defined, let alone time was given to define them.

No, this proves my point. Back in my days of backend programming, Varnish was the "magic" that made servers (especially CMSs) feel fast. Memcached is another common go-to cache.

Browser caching isn't a replacement as the first request for every endpoint is still going to be slow.

Yet somehow, APIs aren't treated with the same requirements for performance as web pages.

Take away social media, and most people have plenty of time for it. Most people fill their hours avoiding their problems rather than confronting them. That's half the reason therapy exists.

> The biggest risk is with privacy

No, the biggest risk is that it behaves in ways that actively harm users in a fragile emotional state, whether by enabling or pushing them into dangerous behavior.

Many people are already demonstrably unable to handle normal AI chatbots in a healthy manner. A "therapist" substitute that takes a position of authority as a counselor ramps that danger up drastically.

You’re saying that as if AI is a singular thing. It is not.

Also, for every nay sayer I encounter now, I’m going to start by asking “Have you ever taken therapy? For how long? Why did you stop? Did it help?”

Therapy isn’t a silver bullet. Finding a therapist that works for you takes years of patient trial and error.

Half of the EU have also banned ZTE and Huawei equipment, so it's not just a US thing.

Given the number of cardinals Pope Francis appointed, I would imagine there's a fairly strong consensus at least on the direction of the church, which in theory would eliminate a strongly divided conclave, at least.

It's not quite so obvious that all of Francis's appointees were lockstop in line with his vision. Up until the last consistory he tended to appoint cardinals from the "peripheries," places that did not historically have a strong presence in the Church. (For instance he appointed a cardinal from Mongolia and one from the Ukrainian Catholic Church in Australia.) These cardinals are a bit of wildcard.

But given that the conclave was so short that does suggest that there was not much division over direction.

I don't think this is charitable enough to the user's complaints, or even the person you are responding to.

If the moderation was effective and limited, people would ultimately be fine with it.

What people don't like is having a question closed as "duplicate" even though what it supposedly duplicates is very different, or any of the other myriad complaints.

The same story goes for Wikipedia. Moderators have an agenda, act in frequently erroneous ways, and are actively hostile to criticism.

I don't even consider what the user asks - simply that it was rejected and it was a question they wanted to ask - hence "whatever they wanted", and while I agree SO's moderation is overly burdensome (and was a mod myself once more than a decade ago) I don't agree that moderation that's effective and limited having users being "ultimately fine with it" - it totally depends on which users you ask.