Plain and simple...

Say I have an Amazon account, and splurged for Prime. All purchases are going to go through me, even stuff I have no interest in and/or never searched for.

I do my searches, and order stuff; Amazon can easily track.
My wife does searching on a different computer, not logged into my account, then sends me an email saying, "Buy this."; Amazon has no clue.
A friend says they can't live without a product. I do all my research NOT on Amazon but on more informed sites. When done, I search Amazon via manufacturer part number, UPC, or ISBN. Amazon scratches its head how I got to a product without a bunch of page clicks.
A Facebook feed points to something useful on Amazon. I don't click on the link. I copy it, strip off the mile long of useless tracking codes, and paste in a link directly to a product to buy. Amazon claims witchcraft!

If I don't give Amazon data, there is not a lot AI can do.

After a couple of months, I can say definitely not.

The biggest problem with the service is that it's nothing but Disney content. When first launched, it was touted as having decades worth of Disney-property content. And everyone (myself included) bought into it.

But now that I have the service, I'm having a hard time finding anything I *really* want to watch. I've gone through the Mandolorian, watched the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe (at least those they currently have the rights to stream), both "Tron" movies, and a number of Pixar films. Now I'm at a loss.

There are buckets of Disney-property films and shorts, but it's all "Disney". This is no "50 years of" Pixar, LucasFilms, or Marvel. While I enjoyed "The Black Hole" in the theater, it really doesn't need a second watch through. Same with "Bedknobs and Broomsticks", "Escape From Witch Mountain", and "The Apple Dumpling Gang". As a kid they were fun, as an adult, it is just a distraction. I don't need to relive "The Great Mouse Detective", and I'm not pining to see Mickey, Donald, and Goofy bust ghosts in "Lonesome Ghosts".

In the end, it's just another service with thousands of movie and nothing to watch.

THIS! A thousand times this.

Seems like no one knows how to actually write code any more, they just know how to tape together a bunch of other peoples snippets.

Please make sure you're not just using a single source for testing speed. Also include speed of accessing "fake news" sites, alternative dating sites, non-christian information, Wikipedia, a BitTorrented file, and streaming a game.

If the destinations you are trying to reach are black listed, just mark that column as "0".

The testing criteria is flawed.

If websites did their security right, there is no issue with it just being "a".

Once you salt, pepper, and hash that letter it becomes just as tricky to hack as "h&t3)__ner!1" -- 64 digits of random looking hex.

A real indicator of a website's bad password storage is if there is a character limit. If they only allow password that are 12 characters or fewer, then you know they are saving the password in a recoverable format. You should also try doing a "Forgot Password"; if they can email your password back in plain text, I wouldn't trust that site with the recipe for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

As in nature, the more powerful grow bigger as to kill off the competition for food and space.

By making my apps larger than required, it means there is less space for other apps on the phone. If room is at a premium, then you're less likely to load duplicate functionality (While it's nice to have two weather apps to get an average, if I don't have enough space, I'll just stick to the one).

This can backfire as people may instead delete the one big app to make room for two smaller but possibly just as competent. However, since file sizes are not always quickly available, more likely people are too lazy to do the research.

Thank you IANAL for attempting to give legal advice.

There are no "implied TOS". If you do not make an effort to hide your site behind a click acceptance, it is fair game. What you are talking about is known as "browsewrap"; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - There is no hard and fast rules about browsewraps being enforceable. It's done on a case-by-case basis. So unless the legal text is on the same page (and not just "by reading this you agree to the TOS found on this other page") as the data you're trying to protect, and most likely would have to appear earlier on the page, not in a footer, you really don't have a leg to stand on.

What sites are doing now is making obvious and unavoidable blockers (whole pages, modals, pop overs, etc) that will only go away with user interaction. These are referred to as "clickwrap". They are enforceable. The user (be it person or bot) had to perform an action acknowledging that they are aware and will abide by the policies.

For legal reference, I would look at Zappos' legal failure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/e...

They tried to force customers into using arbitration in any legal matters. But there was nothing stopping a customer from making a purchase without ever seeing the TOS. Since the TOS was not obvious, and nothing could prove the customer saw it, it was not legally binding and Zappos' lost big.

As a website owner, I talked with a lawyer in how to handle this. I added a checkbox to the end of the membership registration that must be checked before creating the account. I then save the language that was used ("I agree...") and a date/time stamp of the event along with their account details. So if anyone comes back and says they never agreed to the TOS and Privacy Policy, I have proof that they did.

Deadbolts are only as secure as the windows next to them....

I interviewed for a QA position for a large corporation. Even though it was for a manual testing gig, they brought in a group of developers to be part of the "gauntlet" of interviewers. So on top of the normal "tell us about you" and "why here", one of them asked me a programming test question.

After discussing what he wanted, I went to the whiteboard, struggled for a bit, then said, "I'm sorry, I can't figure this out at the moment. Can you show me your solution?"

The smug developer explained (didn't actually write the code) how to tackle it. I paused and considered his answer and said, "That won't work because of X". The other devs in the room thought about it, giggled, and agreed. So they went back to asking relevant questions, and the one dev was silent for the rest of the interview. As we were shaking hands I had an epiphany and explained a working solution.

I ended up getting the job and was assigned to QA a number projects lead by that developer.

I commented the same way about *four and a half years ago*.
https://slashdot.org/comments....

AV spends too much time and resources on making things look pretty, yet scary, instead of actually doing an effective job.

Which this article points out is not a factor. You can play PlayStation Now in the walled garden of a PS3, a PS4, a PS Vita, *or your PC*. Guess it's not as hardware locked as you are trying to rally against.

As for Steam's services being "essentially" free... PlayStation Now is $99 a year. That's less than $10 a month giving you access to 100's of games, making each one of them "essentially" free too

An extremely addictive AR/VR game... Makes people ignore their normal day to day... Some kind of mind control...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

While at my last job, I got an offer for something better in a new state. So I told the new company I'd need a month; two weeks for the current job then two more weeks to relocate. They agreed so I turned in my two-week notice. However it just so happened that I had to give the notice on the Friday just before the company shuts down for a week for Xmas/New Year's holiday.

I think the first thing to note is that I doubt laws uses "quotes" to define a term like "plausible". So it is suspect that what was in the summary is not accurate/official/legal (surprise, surprise).

Given that, I'll try and make an car analogy work.
* Let's start with; yes, one person is the registered owner of the car so it is possible that that person is responsible for any infraction involving the car.
* It is also possible that anyone else in the house could have taken the keys and borrowed the car without the owner knowing.
* Perhaps a neighbor has a key to this car and the owner doesn't even know that they are using it
* Maybe the car was left unlocked with the keys out in the open so anyone walking by could have used the car
* What if this is one of those modern self-driving cars and a hacker has hacked their way in and drove it remotely
* Someone slim-jimmed the lock and fooled On-Star to start it remotely
* Someone just broke the window and hot-wired the car

While option one is plausible, there are so many other ways that someone other than the person whose name is on the bill could the actual perpetrator, that you cannot summarily say "He's the one".

I don't know why Google Alerts isn't considered dead.

I have not received an alert from then about anything in over two years. Which is very unfortunate as I relied on it for my company. I would have it alert me anytime it was mentioned so I could watch for trouble, positive and negative reviews, etc. My company is still around and making news, but the alerts just stopped showing up.