[flagged]
>A child in Texas was 9 years old when she first used the chatbot service Character.AI. It exposed her to "hypersexualized content," causing her to develop "sexualized behaviors prematurely."
I don't know how you can see that as anything other than a dereliction of duty on behalf of the parents. Even if Character.AI had better protections in place, how do they know their child isn't being groomed on the internet? Absolutely terrible. Children should not have open access to the internet.
Yes. What is wrong with you?
It is typical, normal, common, expected, taken for granted that a driver is expected to operate their vehicle in a safe manner and unless that fucking baby is the prematurely reincarnated spirit of Usain Goddamned Bolt, if you hit a fucking child on the highway you're getting looked at.
Any little teeny-tiny thing you did wrong, 1 mph over the limit, tint 0.01% too dark, didn't stop to render aid, safety inspection out of date by one second, will be used to amplify your charges and fuck you even harder.
Here's an example: https://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/hartford/man-charged-w...
Here's another: https://qns.com/2023/12/maspeth-man-charged-manslaughter-fat...
Do you need more than that?
The parents were not watching the baby at all, but they scowled at me when I swerved as they realized what I was swerving away from.
The parents shouldn't have let a baby crawl in the street but it's not clear to me why I would be at fault in such situation if say a kid was riding his bike on the other side and I had nowhere to swerve (honestly it is a miracle my peripheral vision even captured a baby peaking from behind tire and recognized it). I personally know of at least one instance when I was a kid and a driver hit a (jaywalking) kid on the highway and absolutely nothing happened to anyone, and we all felt that was perfectly just.
This is uncalled for and totally against the HN guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html