No one can make session tracking with form variables or URL arguments as reliable as it is with cookies.

I have a lot of success with obscure, mostly-undocumented systems. Which models are you using? There's an enormous difference in capability level between the top-tier models and the next step down. Also a pretty big cost difference.

It can be, sure, but it's less reliable and more painful to work with.

If the law is about sale or sharing, not collection, then Google doesn't have to change anything, because Google doesn't sell or share data. That would be wasteful; Google's ad business is all about monetizing the data at Google, not giving someone else a chance to monetize it.

Sure, but isn't it interesting that the number of photos -- fuzzy or otherwise -- didn't massively increase when everyone started carrying cameras all the time? In fact it declined significantly.

The only logical conclusion is that the little gray men realized there were a lot more cameras about and became much more careful.

It's possible the companies are flagrantly ignoring the opt out indication.

It's also possible that webXray is confusing ad/tracking cookies with cookies required for normal site operation, viewing any set-cookie command as a violation.

Based on my experience working at Google, I'm betting on the second possibility. But, we'll see. Either we'll hear some stories about the companies being fined, or sued, or prosecuted (depending how the law works), or this will just quietly disappear when someone educates webXray.

These would be very useful in geothermal well data loggers. The current technology uses 100 degree C parts inside a thermos container. I presume there are deep oil wells that can also use high temperature data loggers.

Well yes, if you put it that way. There is money in ignoring the AI hype if what you are doing works better without.

There's no money in being an AI sceptic in the way that as an AI hyper you can write articles, give presentations or brag about your startup.

There is, however, another market that moves faster than that one: The CEO market.

Any CEO who said "we don't do AI here, that's all bullshit" will find himself on the job market pretty fast in the current mood. So, everyone does AI. Not because it works as a business decision, but because it works as a job security decision.

see also: "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM"

So called "AI insiders" are almost exclusively people for whom AI is either an active research subject or a business opportunity. There is almost no money to be made from being sceptical about AI. Of course these people feel positive about AI.

The common sense opinion here is more reliable, even if it is less informed.

You are absolutely feel free to argue what you think the law *should* say. But the Bill of Rights, including the fourth amendment (which is what you meant, not the fifth), definitely does not restrict what private citizens and corporations can do. It only restricts the government. And, as TomWinTejas said, it didn't even restrict the states or local governments, only the federal government, until the 14th amendment modified the meaning.

When it comes to search and seizure there is a different concept that protects you from private individuals and corporations: property rights. But the way property rights apply to your face is... complicated at best, and under present law doesn't give you the protection you think you should have. The law gives you protection against someone producing images of your face for commercial use, but that's not what's happening here.

And as for privacy rights, the Constitution really doesn't address that except in the narrow case of government searches. SCOTUS did actual find a right to privacy in the "penumbra" of the Constitution in Roe v Wade, but only ever applied it in the context of one very particular medical procedure, and anyway that court opinion is widely considered to be one of the worst examples of motivated legal reasoning in history. It's pretty clear that the court didn't apply that privacy right in any other cases because shining more light on the incredibly shoddy reasoning could only result in Roe getting overturned. As it did.

Anyway, the point is that you can and should advocate for laws that enact the privacy protections you want, but don't fool yourself in to believing that they already exist in the law, because they don't.

Corroboration is a valid and frequently employed legal concept. It's used to establish "state of mind" is real cases every day. This is not an invention of Trump or any other contemporary boogeyman you been trained to hate. It's been around since before the US was a thing, and the order and prosperity you luxuriate in every day is a consequence of such wisdom.

Is that the motivating prerogative? If so then why is it a minor eddy in the torrent of tech news that people are astonished to learn is still up?

Hopefully. Thats the kind of stuff this particular site was doing before all the virtue-soys showed up and made it a climate news and EV fanboi site. Hell, minor releases of Enlightenment used to be news, not that you'd know what that is.

The left wing does its own share of screwing stuff up. The center-left is pretty good at governance, though.