You do it Musk's way or FU

You mean, you do it Musk's way or you go into the car settings and flip a switch.

I say this respectfully, but of all the possible things Elon may or may not have done wrong, giving customers the choice to have their camera watch and record motion seems like really small fries.

At the absolute most, you're complaining about whether the switch is on or off by default (or always prompts the user for a setting during initial car setup). A veritable molehill.

Kinda food for thought:

Alice has convinced Bob that he has to send $X( maybe his money, maybe the company account) to Charlie. Bob goes to {financial service provider} and authorizes a transfer of $X to Charlie's account. The bank verifies that it's really Bob and has him verify the recipient. This is not a case of misrepresented sender (Alice logging into Bob's account) or mistaken recipient (Bob thinks he's sending it to his son Charlie but really it's Charlie's roommate David) or mistaken amount -- Bob has truly authentically said he wants to send that money to Charlie.

Later on, it turns out Alice convinced Bob to do so via fraudulent means. But what obligation does the financial service provider really have in this regards? They effected the transaction based on the authentic direction of their customer. How many "are you sure" or "this cannot be undone" dialogs are they supposed to add? Would it help if the dialog box said "this looks extremely dumb to us, are you actually sure bro"?

I can think of a view things they ought to do here, but philosophically I just don't know if I accept the framing that they are involved in, or facilitating, that fraud. They are doing what their customer told them, just the same as anyone else.

Yeah, but the animator wasn't allowed to use any unfree graphics or animations tools and ... well ... you see the result.

you need to be clever about how you DMA data in and out of the cores' scratchpad memory

That's what they said about Itanium too -- it will be faster you just need compilers to understand and optimize for ILP.

I think your later statement ought to be the lead: it's not a general purpose CPU. The domain of problems for which you can be clever and for which it's worth it to do so is extremely narrow.

Apparently you didn't read the article because crippling an entire industry is what the commission chose not to do.

They aren't? They are synthesizing the information into connections within a neural network and then using that network in the future.

It's not identical, of course, but it's similar enough that appeals to treating them differently need to be justified (IMHO).

Are your children building a business model based on the work of others?

Isn't everyone's business model based off of the work of (at least one of) Newton, Watt, Kelvin, Otto, von Neumann, Turing, Alexander Flemming or Louis Pasteur?

Like, isn't this the entire premise of civilization that everything we do, business and otherwise, is based on the work that other people did before. It's not like every generation is reinventing the wheel.

My children study things off the internet and incorporate it into their knowledge stored in their brains.

Do they owe you a chunk of their future paycheck or is this restricted to inorganic computation only?

Even posting foreign propaganda written by hostile states is not a crime.

Doing it for free isn't a crime, but being a paid agent of a foreign state without registering with the State Dept is a crime

The question is about calculating the strength, which is (log of) the number of operations required to break it (modulo some constants). For symmetric ciphers this is just key size since it requires trying every possible key. For asymmetric algorithms, however, it's usually about the number of operations to compute the private key for a given public key. So RSA using a 2048b key has a strength of 112 because you have to do approx 2^112 operations (using GNFS) to factor the public key.

This implies that to compute the strength of an asymmetric algorithm, you need to know the best possible factorization method. If you didn't know about GNFS, you would think RSA2048 was stronger than it really is. And in the (unlikely)

In this case, the disagreement boils down to whether Grover's algorithm is the best possible quantum method, which implies quadratic complexity (multiply two numbers) or if a linear search will be possible (add two numbers). As no quantum computers even exist, let alone enough time to believe we've found the best possible method to run on them, this is hardly a "scientific question".

Felon-in-possession is a famously easy charge to prove.

Why take a harder case to the jury when you could take an easy one? It doesn't really matter to anyone (not even the defendant) exactly which section he's found guilt of.

That's like saying your hot water heater/refrigerator/blender needs to payback before their warranty expires. You do not get appliances as an investment opportunity.

I think you aren't engaging the main point. Appliances are not an investment, but the increased cost of a more efficient appliance as compared to other choices has to be evaluated by looking at lifetime operating costs.

The framing here isn't the appliance as an investment -- it's in how to compare and chose between different appliances that perform the same function.

Not to be finished with those retail stores...a different command code handles whether or not the cash drawer opens, which is sent via the receipt printer, and implemented...in the print driver config area.

The rest of your examples sound pretty reasonable, but a POS (ahem) opening the cash drawer by sending customized command codes to a printer is a true WTF.

You know that a court, in addition to granting money as compensation for past conduct, can also enter an injunctive order forbidding future conduct.

So it's not "gets some money" it's "the court orders them to stop doing that and never do it again".

AND you are passing laws to force the service provider to pay if they happen to provide the service product you're demanding, then you are the whiny, insufferable cockknob tyrant politician.

You forgot the best AND! You pass laws that demand that service providers stop "taking content without paying" (whatever that means) AND you get upset when they stop doing the thing you wanted them to stop.

Literally the whole thing was "don't link to Canadian news outlets without paying them" and Meta complying.