I wish it was more difficult

And we will have even more energy when this internet fad dies off

In fairness you cant just say its not a zero sum game when the article is supported with a quote from one individual saying they were glad it told them in some cases. We dont know how effective it is.

This is normalizing very intimate (and automated) surveillance. Kids all have smart phones and can google anything they want when they arent using school hardware. If kids have any serious pre-meditation to do something bad then they will do it on their smartphones.

The only reason this would be effective is to catch students before they are aware they are being watched (poof thats gone tomorrow), or the student is so dirt poor that they dont have a smart phone or craptop.

And what else will the student data be used for? Could it be sold? It would certainly have value. Good intentions are right now... data is FOREVER.

Counter point: when this isnt an obscure thing, and kids are aware of it, they will purposefully use trigger words because they are kids.

If kids/people are having mental health issues, whats the best way to handle that? By scanning for the symptom and telling them to stop being mentally troubled? I really doubt kids are getting the care they need based on these flags. Seems like a bandaid for cultural/systemic issues that cause the mental illness/harm.

!remind me in 1 year

And what happens when you kill a sack of puppies you monster?

Like power output of switzerland or china?

If it were powered by nuclear energy, for example, then would they would have utility? Or you are saying money is better spent elsewhere full stop?

I mean i guess this is related to technology??

.

Dont call people "high minded" for disregarding body odor as a politically relevant discussion.

If you read the article you would see it claims he has smelled since the 80s.

Sorry I raised questions about your hot take, im sure i wasnt operating with enough information to fairly judge you. But unfortunately i dont have the mental capacity to consider anything that isnt a "feeling" conveyed by an article headline and the picture that accompanies it.

Wow so many questions youve raised that might have a basis in reality. I find the best way to form a foundational belief about someone is to focus on things that seem to be out of their control (OR IS IT??).

Can we just straight up ban certain people from running for president to avoid this going forward? Smell, poor vision, obesity, age, maybe weird lookin people too...

What is "it", and what is it about?

Sorry your bullshit rambling doesnt amount to an opinion. :(

Get well soon.

Oh wow an actual reason provided. Too bad it doesnt mean shit compared presidents that were too unhealthy to fit in a bathtub or even walk. What other arbitrary limits should we set upon holding office, or for that matter to work in america? Why stop at discriminating smell? Is it maybe because you are deriving candidate viability based on trump instead of objective criteria for a candidate?

Lets pick on blind people next maybe?

All of this to avoid telling me why smell is a determining factor when voting for a political candidate. Oh, i guess that makes sense if there is no legitimate reason as you claim. Seems like a simple question doesnt it?

Thats your own fault. My request was simple. You have not commented on the smell of a candidate contributing or detracting from their ability to hold office. You just said trumps fans may hate it, and trump indeed smells, and that trump has done bad things including telling people they smell.

Still waiting for your answer to the original question.

Edit: "facts" lmao

You definitely have not.

Oh okay so you employ the same strategy as the article. Just provide enough text (with an LLM) in your response to discourage the reader from engaging meaningfully while amazingly saying nothing meaningfully related to our discussion.

The disinformation age sucks. I have no words for how much you suck. So unless your response to this message is a succinct, human-typed reply that makes a single related argument to the legitmacy of a candidates smell then good day to you, chatgpt.

Fight idiocy with idiocy?

You sure look smart citing sources though, my goodness. So when i ask why anyone would vote for someone based on smell, you cite "sources" that confirms he smells. Okayyy...

And your most relevant sentence is trying to say that trump is hypocritical because he has judged people based on their smell? So you think we should be holding ourselves to trumps standards?

Maybe explain to me one more time, in your own words, why a candidates smell should be a factor when im deciding how to vote for?

I read as much garbage as i could. That is longest, most rambling article i could imagine. You want to actually put it in your own words? Because saying we can politically judge candidate smell because trump sniped politicians for petty reasons as well is not a reason; its a logical fallacy. You want to spew meaningless hate like trump? And if a candidate comes along that is perfect for america but has an odor, you promise to hate them too?