Not sure what you're calling elderly, but my FIL turned 70 this year, and I just set him up with Mint a few months ago. Dude is loving it.
if this doesn't become profitable in a mainstream way
This is exactly what I meant by Bernie being caught up in tech CEO bluster. He can't imagine that this shit doesn't change the world in monumental and lucrative ways. He's talked about how the tech people he's spoken to don't like his proposal because they don't want to share the profits, but I haven't seen any CEO make public comments one way or the other. With everyone involved knowing it's a bubble, I'm sure they secretly love to insure their investments with public money. They just can't say it out loud or the bubble might pop early.
And, yes, people of every age are tech illiterate. But overwhelmingly the elderly are the people crafting legislation about tech. Old age is heavily associated with cognitive decline, which makes it harder to understand, examine, and interrogate unfamiliar ideas, such as "AI" or "Whatever the Fuck Private Equity is Doing Right Now." Bernie's a smart guy, and it seems like he's still sharper than a lot of his contemporaries, but you can't fight nature. I'd rather see him cosponsor legislation with a younger senator and mentor the next generation of congress, instead of hanging on to the bitter end and giving us half-baked policy like this.
I listened to a pretty comprehensive interview Bernie had regarding his proposal a few weeks ago. My big takeaway was that he fundamentally misunderstands the technology as it currently exists, and while he's skeptical of the motives of these tech CEOs, he's completely bought in on their nonsense claims of fully automating the workforce.
AKA an octogenarian suggesting legislation on a technology he doesn't understand. This is a thing that has bitten Americans in the ass countless times in the last four decades.
But Bernie's been advocating for this, guys! You know, Bernie! He's surely not another octogenarian career politician with a limited understanding of the tech sector!
You really held out for a while, huh?
The police officer didn't witness the crime. They're making that Judgement based on evidence provided by a third party.
If my house were broken into, and I managed to capture video of the incident, I can't just hand that to the police and call it a day. The accused has a constitutionally protected right to face me in court, not just the video or the officer I gave the video to, so that their defense can interrogate it fully. What if there is additional context that undermines the narrative presented by this single piece of evidence? If I know the accused and had a reason to see them convicted (such as getting a kickback from any fine they pay), now my clear evidence becomes a little more suspect. Now there's a very clear motive for me to skew, misinterpret, or completely fabricate the video.
That's what OP is referring to. If a company is going to install cameras and claim their cameras caught me doing something I shouldn't have, I have a right to ask that company for more details regarding their claim. Ideally in a public court, with a representative of the company under oath.
Politicians are fine with this because the cameras will just point at their chauffeurs.
Yeah, that's the assumption everyone else has piled onto, but we have no context except that they're all wearing costumes. Nothing in this photo inherently shows "good" parenting, unless the baseline for good is making sure your child isn't completely nude in public.