Nollij

Speaking only about the legal sense here, most places do not recognize that. If you are of sound mind and body, not under the influence of drugs, extortion, etc, then the consent is valid.

Part of the problem is that everyone is at least a little deceitful, and these have been used in courts to claim rape. I remember a case about the use of makeup (deceiving about her actual looks and genetics), and another about being the "wrong" ethnicity. Where is the line for the courts to be involved?

That would need to be affirmed by the courts to matter.

If the rule of law still matters, here is the process:

1. Judiciary does a thing
2. Someone harmed by it (i.e. someone with standing, possibly the trump admin) files a suit
3. Court agrees with the plaintiff
4. Appeals court declines to hear or agrees with plaintiff
5. SCOTUS does the same

Now, the plaintiff can also appeal, and they get an injunction by showing immediate and irreparable harm. But generally, the actions can continue while the appeal is pending.

This is understandably vague. Other people have mentioned the US FBI, but there's also the NCMEC and IWF. If this is a professional-looking work, you may want to engage the studio's compliance office. There are a number of very young-looking performers that were confirmed legal adults, so it might be a false alarm.

If you found something on PornHub or similar (possibly including Facebook), they usually have a 'Report' link. If you claim it contains minors, they will likely handle reports to the authorities automatically.

If you are looking to discuss whether a work contains a minor, outside of an abstract like the Traci Lords videos, I would recommend against it. Get the compliance records from the studio, or report it to authorities.

The explanation I heard back then was that Pluto wouldn't qualify as a planet, EXCEPT that it has a moon. I'm not sure why that exception would apply, but it seems it's no longer good enough.

He'd probably brag about them, even (or especially) if he had nothing to do with them.

If you always come back to life, and you remember your previous lives, is it really death? How is it really different from going to sleep?

I remember seeing someone make an argument for leashes, and it stuck with me. Forgive me that I don't remember the source, so this is paraphrasing at best.

First, you must throw out all of your thoughts and mental associations with the leash. You must consider this scenario on its own. It has nothing to do with pets, or anything like that. This is about parenting, and only parenting.

You might see a leash as degrading. And to an adult, or an older child, that would certainly be the case. But these are typically only used on small children who have not yet developed that concept. IOW, the child does not mind the leash, aside from wanting to go where the leash won't allow.

You might think that the child's curiosity is being limited. Kids need to run and be free! But if there were no leash, that wouldn't be the case. Instead of a leash, a hyper-vigilant parent would be enforcing similar boundaries. In fact, most parents would be enforcing stricter boundaries- if you need to make sure Junior doesn't run away, you might not let them walk anywhere. The simplest form is requiring them to hold your hand, which is like an even shorter leash.

Since they can't just run away, you can even use a long leash. That allows them to run and explore and jump around, and have significantly greater freedoms, all because the string keeps them near enough. They might still fall and get hurt, but that's part of growing up. And yes, at a certain point, they will need to learn impulse control to stay nearby without a leash. This doesn't mean a leash is bad, only that it's not for every circumstance and needs to be retired at some point.

Now, after all of the above, can you articulate why a leash is always bad? Keeping in mind the child doesn't mind.

The top 5 websites in the world are mostly reposts from the other 4.

Also, you asked 3 completely different and unrelated questions:

1. Why do drivers need admin permissions?
2. Why do devices only come with Windows drivers?
3. Why are corporate IT policies the way they are?

#3 could be broken down even further, covering how/when admin is granted, as well as how devices are procured.

At my (large) employer, we absolutely would've told you to pound sand for getting that device outside of official channels and bypassing a security review. Especially since you described it as a data logger.

Is there something technically forcing the privilege elevation to install a driver ?

Yes. With few exceptions, drivers need admin permissions to be installed. In part that's because they need admin permissions to run, and malicious drivers have absolutely been exploited in the past.

Some hardware (e.g. mice, keyboards, storage) don't need additional drivers to be installed, but that's because the OS uses generic drivers, or has a whitelisted source (e.g. Windows Update)

I agree with most of what you said. I've long said that Lemmy is the most toxic platform I've ever been on (although this might just be more apparent due to size).

But the groupthink and enforced echo chambers are rampant. Very few people on here are capable of imagining a viewpoint they themselves have not experienced, let alone accept it as valid.

What's really wild is that previously, you were expected to commit to a life together without even knowing what they would be like when cohabiting. Even weirder is that they would often still be living with their parents when you make the commitment. THAT was some crazy shit.