Which is exactly what "other countries" are doing to China right now by blocking their access to chip manufacturing ? So it's ok when the west does it to china, but if china tries to fight back they're somehow evil and need to be stopped ? Why not just let them be, it's not a zero sum game, there'll just be more chip production

If the human would have been able to see the truck for 7 seconds, the "autopilot" should have been able to have seen it for even longer, and 7 seconds is already *a lot* for a computer, making it a pretty crappy autopilot..

Android is horrible, it cripples the system, and adds huge unnecessary complexity to the development. Some people only need a main() entry point, and to go into a loop where they sleep and poll the OS and draw the screen, why put them in the position where they're forced to jump through all the hoops of a Java VM? That can be built on top of the basic system for the people who need it. This would be horrible for a desktop. There has to be a normal mobile OS out there

If they're encouraging developers to account for different clock speeds from the start, sounds like they're leaving themselves wiggle room to maybe update the hardware in the future, although they can't get too crazy unless they use an abstract enough api for graphics (Vulkan hopefully). Console developers won't like it, but it might be the only way this thing can survive against phones

Can we us some real words to describe things maybe? "Disrupted" doesn't mean anything

That sounds great. Will it help me do my exercise routine in the morning?

Or a personal responsibility board? Of course they don't need any actual cybersecurity experts, this is only to distract from the fact that they broke the rules by pointing the finger at someone else. They don't need this board to do anything, it's just for the press release

I wonder how many of them got denied credentials to participate in the olympics as a result of this vetting. Which is not necessarily bad, except whenever someone wins at any of the competitions, they don't get to say they're the best in the world anymore, they get to say they're the best best out of a hand picked group that was selected for reasons that may or may not be related to their athletic abilities.

it wasn't the russians who compromised your elections, it was one of the political parties, by sabotaging itself, and "the russians" (yet to be clear if it was actually the government) are the ones who exposed it. This is a pretty bizarre spin on the actual facts. If anything failed you, it was the FEC and the journalists whose job was to investigate and expose this, the foreign actors actually helped you out.

How much information was taken down by this attack? Could you put it in an amount that us normal people can relate too?

The Blackberry Hub was the best feature of the BB10 phones, and by switching to Android they lost it (going by the reviews the app gets on the Android store). Good news is you can buy a Z30 for $200 now, but it'll die pretty soon, Facebook doesn't work anymore, and WhatsApp will stop supporting it in the next few months. They got too distracted with the weird hardware stuff (like the physical keyboard, old people would have gotten used to the touchscreen), BB10 is a great OS.

Why are we reading an article about a website instead of just going to the goddamn website to see for ourselves? This was typical of the off-line media about 20 years ago, "let me tell you about these crazy internet kids (but never provide any URL)", now even the internet news sites are doing it, what's the point of your article if I can't experience the source for myself? Do they really think I'm going to experience the world only through their description of it and be grateful about it? That may have been what journalism was 100 years ago, not anymore.

On behalf of "the company", or on behalf of the owner of the copyrighted material that they're trying to take down? If it's the latter, it still applies, because they were actually not authorized by the real owner.

The DMCA notice is a sworn statement, the issuer swears under penalty of perjury that the information in the notice is accurate. In this case it clearly wasn't, so perjury applies. Who gets to apply that penalty tho?