They didn't say it shouldn't have been developed. Improving the AI models so they can deal with this kind of malicious interference gracefully is a good thing.

Since you don't understand, quotes denote emphasis or specificity, not emotion.

Actually quotes denote quotations. When used casually around an individual word or short phrase they generally indicate that the writer is emphasizing that these are someone else's words, and that the writer would have chosen a different description. As in: These people are described as "teens" but are probably not only/mostly teenagers. That may not be what you meant, but it's how that text will be read.

If you just want emphasis you might consider using bold or italics rather than quotes.

The GPL in most cases only requires that derivative work must also be shipped with the same license. The source code from providers doesn't have to be distributed by unity, it has to be distributed by the provider.

This is incorrect. The distributor of derivative works in binary form is responsible for providing the source code. They can refer to a server operated by a third party, but if that third party stops providing the source code the distributor remains obligated to ensure that it is still available. The only exception is for binaries which were originally received with a written offer of source code, where the offer can be passed on as-is, but that only applies for "occasional and non-commercial" distribution which wouldn't work here.

These are protesters, not terrorists. A reputable news agency isn't going to take sides one way or the other. The reporting should be structured more like a debate, with both sides allowed to voice their positions in neutral language and offer a rebuttal.

If you can easily tell which side of the issue the presenter is on you're seeing an opinion piece, not news.

Your ~~intake of sugar~~ participation in extreme sports absolutely impacts other people when you end up with chronic health issues that other people have to help pay for.

It's not as if there's some natural law obligating you to pay for anyone else's health issues. Your government is responsible for externalizing that private cost onto you and others, effectively subsidizing risk-taking and irresponsibility. If you don't like it, insist that people pay for their own health care and insurance at market rates, without subsidies.

They ruled that people acting together have all the same rights that they would have acting individually, and that preventing someone from spending money on producing and promoting their speech effectively prevents them from being heard. Which are both perfectly true, common-sense statements.

The morals of your actions are for you to decide. It's your conscience. However, if you punched someone over what they said they would be perfectly justified both in defending themselves against your aggression and in punching you right back. At that point you would have no objective rational argument that their defense or retribution was wrong which would not similarly condemn your own actions. You're the one who chose to escalate to violence, not them.

Freedom of Speech primarily exists to protect thw press

Freedom of Press is a whole separate thing. Freedom of Speech is about public discourse in general, not just speech by members of the press.

Apart from that, however, you're on the right track.

Just luxury spending and underperforming investments. Essential spending can't be deferred, and worthwhile investments will outpace any natural rate of deflation. Forced inflation drives conspicuous consumption and malinvestment, but in doing so it increases monetary velocity, which helps bankers and tax collectors extract higher rent from the economy.

No, I am not okay with bans like that. You should be able to knowingly buy products with mercury in them. Obviously if someone is selling products containing mercury and not disclosing that fact, passing them off as safe to handle, that would be a problem and they would be liable for any harm that resulted from that. But it doesn't justify a preemptive ban.

What if they never even hear the FDA recommendation?

Then the FDA isn't doing a very good job, are they? Ensuring that people hear their recommendations (and trust them) would be among their core goals.

The rare fringe cases where someone is affected indirectly without personally having choosen to purchase the product can be dealt with through the courts. There is no need for preemptive bans.