There is a great video about it, where the e-waste of electric cars is compared to the Great Stink in London.

And even Mifare did not advertise this system as "high security". The company had more secure systems even back then. But Mifare classic (as it later became known) was chosen by lots of companies around the world as it was just cheaper. I can still hear my old manager say: "I can't sell secure!"

The possibility of buying time is long past. We needed to take action 30 years ago, and we still haven't done anything (the existing actions are totally overshadowed by an increase in further destruction of our habitat). Time can no longer be bought. On the contrary, we blasted over so many tipping points that climate change can now do without us. The forest burns in Canada produced way more CO2 than the Canadians, the oceans have buffered a lot of CO2 for us, but are releasing it back into the atmosphere as they heat up, the melting ice sheets are making the planet darker so it traps more solar heat, etc. After closing our eyes for decades, time is the very thing that is no longer available.

Only if you externalize the real costs. If you leave the real cost of plastic, the waste problem, the environmental problems, the health problems, etc, out, only then it looks cheap.

It is not an oil industry problem only because corrupt politicians put the problem onto society, so the oil industry has the profit and not the costs.

Maybe, but it won't help. The oxygen would be washed away by solar wind. The liquid metal core of our planet protects us for the same thing, but Mars no longer has a liquid metal core.

Just wait until the Linux/*BSD world has defined it. Then wait another 25 years for Microsoft to catch up.

It is well known that things expand as they heat up. Due to global warming, even the universe expands more quickly!

"Sharing" must be the weasel word of the century. How altruistic of the automakers to share the data!

That is also why a contract is by definition not transferable. I know Justice systems around the world disagree with me, but the parties that made the agreement are part of the contract. Some parties can have a contract that is small because they trust each other. Some parties need complex contracts spelling out all minute details and if/then clauses.

No.

The emoji has a meaning though. If the client had simply responded "yes", it would be a confirmation, but not a signature. If you demand a signature, then specifically ask for it in your confirmation request.

But the best thing is release upgrades. You do the upgrade, use a diff editor where configuration clashes were detected, and then reboot. With Windows, all config settings have moved or stopped working. With Linux, you just have a more updated system. You may want to install or remove some components, but it usually just works.

I disagree. This is part of the ongoing "war" between large tech companies and ordinary people. I don't remember who said "In the future, you will own nothing and be happy", but here is someone who wanted the tech to include him, even though the tech was designed to render ordinary people to little more than paying goods. Even if what he did was illegal (and the big tech companies have lobbied for a lot of things to be illegal), the man tried to make tech work for himself rather than for some big tech overlord..

Here's a link to wat RCS actually is.

If you really think you cannot by definition hack by supplying input, then there are by definition no injection attacks. Bobby Tables sends you greetings. While chatting with a chatbot is intended use, we might come up with a good name for the attack, if only to better understand what is happening. As chatbots are usually instructed to serve a certain purpose, I suggest we call it an "instruction attack", even if this is a no-brainer kind of attack.

This does not mean that the New York Times did anything illegal. They did an investigation. Just like researchers use all kinds of vulnerabilities to investigate malware.

In other words: "Lenovo's Laptop Concept is Fully Transparent, But the Concept Is not."