Are there any books a school or public library (both of which are funded by taxpayer funds) could choose not to buy despite the inability of some interested locals to actually buy the book on their own and not be accused of "banning books"?

Can a library choose to not shelve The Anarcists Cookbook or a coffee table book of Maplethorpe's photography, or is that also "banning" those books?

Humorously, many libraries I know are actually reducing the number of actual books they shelve, preferring to dedicate more floor space to their new role as a taxpayer-funded Internet cafe.

What? Jimmy Kimmel is still on the air, his bosses took him off the air briefly for what they figured were good reasons (like, you know, major affiliates refusing to air his show over some 'jokes' that were in bad taste).

Let me guess, you also think a school district deciding to not put "This Book is Gay" in a middle school library is "banning the book" despite your ability to buy it online or in any bookstore, as well as check it out at your local library. I bet you're also one of those folks that constantly surprised to learn "Temporary" programs someday end!

Really? By 'soaking' Discovery + subscribers for an additional $12/year ($1/month x 12 months) it will take how long to pay off $30BN in debt?

It's been almost 2 years since their last price hike, that seems pretty consistent with their historical pattern of price hikes.

This really seems more to be a coincidence that a nefarious, underhanded way to somehow beat for the merger on the backs of Discovery+ subscribers.

"Musk" was shown on exactly 4 screens world-wide, "The History of Concrete" was on considerably more screens...

I saw "Concrete", it was a very east coast intellectual almost art film. It was enjoying, but it is aimed at a very particular audience, a very New York audience (it's a very New York movie, and if you don't know what that means, it means the city plays an integral part in the movie, relying on inside jokes New Yorkers would be familiar with, for examples see any of Woody Allen's early movies).

"Tropic Thunder" is a great movie, dare I call it the "Airplane!" or "Police Squad" of a new generation, right up there with "Zoolander" and "Dodgeball"

The college still had an in-effect contact with Flock, they can't just declare it 'abandoned' and do as they like with it.

Tampering with the cameras would make the college responsible for the damage.

As for the student "arrested in the parking lot" - so what? It obviously wasn't ICE (that would have been mentioned) and we have no idea why the student was arrested - cops could have followed him into the parking lot for a moving violation, they could have had a warrant and pinged his cellphone, he could have been breaking into cars in the parking lot, selling drugs in the parking, etc... I didn't realize that community college parking lots were 'sanctuaries' for criminals.

What a silly take - this wasn't an 'indie film' that was self-financed and the suppressed/held back by "the Epstein Class" (whatever the fuck that is), a major studio spent $30M to make this movie - that $30M CAME FROM "The Epstein Class"... why would they fund a movie, film it, then put it in theaters only to suppress it?

This monomaniacal focus on the rich being responsible for everything that goes wrong in the world is a bit childish...

They thought they were making a whistleblower movie, not an indictment of Zuck/Facebook/Meta. They thought she was the the next "Deep Throat" from Watergate, found out no one cared, really.

Before the money, Zuck created the "Hot or Not?" Website ranking women on his college campus - he was clearly a sociopath before the money.

Aaron Sorkin wrote the script - he's a good writer, but this was just a hot mess.

I saw it, it was mildly interesting, but the movie didn't really engage me... it wasn't really about the whistleblower, it wasn't really about the journalist, it wasn't really about Zuck/Facebook, it wasn't really about J6 - it was just an exercise telling multiple parallel stories.

I think there was an interesting movie in there, but the editing made it a confusing movie.

I saw Digger too, what a horrid hot mess that movie was...

Cameras only record your location as you pass in front of a camera. They don't 'track you' you pass by their data collection points. Yes, your path between data collection points can be guessed/interpolated, but you aren't tracked in a meaningful sense of the word.

To track somebody would require Flock cameras to be deployed in such huge number that literally no location within the city is not monitored by flock cameras.

There are 'only' about 130,000 flock cameras deployed in America, for comparison, there are between 4 and 6 million CCTV cameras in the UK. As a reminder, the USA is about 40x larger than the UK.

Did it happen in front of a flock camera?

Do you have witnesses to provide the officers with actionable information (make, model of car, description of driver, license plate number, anything)?

What do you honestly think officers can do without anything other than the color of paint the hit-and-run car left on your vehicle?

Lazy police work should 109% be punished. A detective should not ask for an arrest warrant based solely on a Flock camera sighting, no prosecutor should try and prosecute on such thin evidence, and no judge should sign-off on such a warrant, and ANSoLUTELY no jury should convict based solely/exclusively on Flick camera data...

But they do...

And folks want to blame the cameras, not the officers.