Instead of paying for airfares, wouldn’t it just be cheaper to virtually explore the world using the internet? However there are caveats: you won’t feel the atmosphere, be able to taste the food & keeping in mind that absence of one’s physical presence whilst browsing online isn’t considered “travel” by the majority, satellite images can be outdated in some cases if they haven’t kept tabs on particular locations.

You can’t replicate real life and first hand experiences simply from virtual exploration since that requires not only physical presence but, to see first hand what it actually is rather than reading from some article regurgitating that information. You could just explore a place via street view, but how old are those images? Since places evolve overtime meaning those street view photos can get rather old fast.

The technology for it exists, but remains rather niche since there’s still more cars driven by people than cars operated by AI. Do YOU want to replace your own car with an AI operated one or rather keep one meant to be used by humans? As of now, it’s rather rare unless you happened to spot one whilst on the road. Most car dealerships only sell “normal” cars intended for humans, even electronic cars still require a human driver.

If one were to view it from a scientific PoV: is the technology today this advanced on completely replacing normal vehicles making driverless the default standard? That would mean everybody gets to do whatever while the AI is the one operating the vehicle (the steering wheel is on autopilot), also the loss of jobs (cab drivers), whilst dealing with ethics (is current AI sentient enough in real time situational awareness whilst on the road?).

As it stands today, unmanned vehicles (entirely operated by AI with no human intervention) still has shortcomings from accidents or collisions. Also, how would society react to AI being the driver? If there’s no steering wheel on an entirely AI operated car: how can you override its protocols when it becomes rogue? There are “self driving” cars, but how many use that as their main mode of transportation than buses / trains?

For perspective: Sweden has a the draft (but it’s different) since they have what’s known as “totalförsvar” or Total Defense, it’s a comprehensive strategy combining military defense and civil defense preparing society for war or severe crisis. This involves all government agencies, municipalities, private businesses including citizens ages from 16 to 70 working in unison safeguarding the nation’s independence & security.

There are two components from their “draft”:

• Military Defense: Led by the armed forces as their main goal is to deter and defeat armed attacks, protect territorial integrity as well as contributing to Allied defense alongside NATO.
• Civil Defense: Coordinated by the Swedish Civil Defense Agency maintaining critical societal functions such as healthcare, energy supply, transport & electronic communications during heightened alert or war.

Think of “Civil Defense” like this, you are not fighting in a war nor enlisting in the military: rather being drafted to serve organizations that tie in, you instead have to serve in FEMA (disaster response), Border Patrol, EMT (medics), Firefighting, NSA for a set duration in order to retain skills required in case of a invasion (Ameri-Corps exists, but what would happen if the draft either choosing that or being made to enlist in the army?)

Usually, it’s the individual’s own money meaning they are able to spend whatever they want with it: however why is it that there’s a different reaction or response on: “where did you get that money from?” when it comes to either a homeless man or a businessman holding 5,000€ in cash. They would not question the businessman on how he obtained that while a homeless man will be accused of stealing or suspected of bank robbery.

The businessman pays for the iPhone using that money with nobody batting an eye on how he acquired that, but when the homeless man is paying for the same thing: suddenly they become “I have to verify if this is real” (referring to the cash) just because they think he’s giving them counterfeit or threaten to report him, like why does it matter whether someone is employed or unemployed regarding how they acquired their money?

The situation is like this: either the hospital has files containing the defendants or witnesses medical history relevant to the case in question, but the thing is that doctors are not at liberty to disclose personal information. I mean is it the same with companies storing client data containing sensitive information. In both cases, are they forced to disclose the files contents (even with personal information) when given a court order?

Both the UK & AU have passed legislation in which they aim to “ban” social media for kids -16 (or that’s the excuse they’re using) when its the catalyst for mass surveillance (unfortunately, even if you tell them the truth: it’s either people including your own family consider you paranoid or a conspiracy theorist). To avoid that, one must gather sufficient evidence debunking or dispelling the lies being shoved into the masses via media.

The common defense for this is “think of the children” from either lazy parents or Christian conservatives as that’s the easiest lie ever told besides social media or internet usage (you heard that from games, movies or music restrictions in the past). IMO, “banning” SM outright or trying to reinforce AV towards everyone creates more hassle for both sides (users and companies) as SM companies can face large fines for non-compliance.

If you look at the larger picture: it treads on one’s liberties such as freedom of speech & expression as what appears to be “no SM for -16” soon morphs into a 1984-esque dystopia where people will be detained for speaking their mind or the truth. This is what digital privacy advocates fear, basically saying that internet anonymity will cease or be deemed illegal if people lack critical thinking or can’t see through the fog.

Even though the laws have passed in both countries: it does nothing as people (kids and adults) can still access SM. They know VPN’s exist, banning or trying to lock that under AV will make them look stupid. SM is toxic due to the slop and demographic, but IMO should remain up to the individuals or families rather than the government (all MSM side with the state using “no SM for -16” omitting mass surveillance in the headlines).

There is no internet (let alone social media or body cams) during that era, since Jim Crow in America was still being enforced towards black people at that time, but the civil rights movement is gaining traction (since Martin Luther King was alive). I mean, cop violence has been around for a long time before body cams were invented. How did people hear first hand encounters from those victimized back then without reliance on social media?

I remember watching The Hurt Locker (starring Jeremy Renner), the movie is meant to depict the Iraq War in 2004 but for some reason there’s a scene where an iPod Touch (releases in 2007), XBOX 360 (releases in 2005) and Gears of War (releases in 2006) present in the barracks even though these did not exist yet. Another anachronism from this movie is when a American soldier spots an Iraqi recording him ready on uploading the footage via YouTube (the website didn’t exist yet until 2005 when the story is set in 2004).