Yes, the problem with 'end-to-end encrypted traffic' is one end is the device, and the other end is the manufacturer. The supposed owner gets no look at the data 'his' device is sending

If (say) the bus services a naval base, very sensitive information may be transmitted (stop location, duration, schedule, internal fuel level...)

If only a strange hybrid of John Deere and Tesla built buses, those would not have this problem, right?

Right?

I don't know why large buyers, in particular, allow end-to-end encrypted traffic between the vendor and the products the buyer ostensibly owns.

At the very least, the traffic should be open to inspection by the buyer, who should be able to selectively turn off or disable aspects of it.

Spam, spam, spam, eggs and spam didn't provide enough incentive to try to distinguish between humans and skin jobs, but now "AI slop" does? Ok, great!

Check the OpenPGP signature.

Unsigned? /dev/null.

Signed but no trust path? /dev/null

Signed and with a trust path? Can still be trash, but its claims to be of human origin, are worth taking seriously. If you find a problem (e.g. someone trusted the wrong person) then deal with that then.

I agree completely. AIs can do that already. There are even some prompts supposed to enhance the interaction. Something like this:
  "You are an advanced so and so... You teach using the Socratic method".

Coupling AI to licensed course content chopped up for focussed instruction delivery will make it even more powerful. It should also reduce the chance of misinstruction or hallucination.

It can do a passable simulacrum of that :-).

Won't using 1Password - as opposed to using a local credential store - also risk compromise of the enterprise?

My impression of 1Password is that it is centralised store of encrypted passwords - isn't that a hacker magnet? Hackers could obtain the encrypted store and attempt to decrypt at leisure. Or hack 1Password's communication interfaces and endpoints.

I'd be much more comfortable if all 1Password did was enable the syncing of credential stores directly between devices, never keeping a copy . That way I gain a distributed master record. Basically, a signal to say "hey, a credential has changed; sync up with such and such device". If my devices happen to sync directly, the vendor may never even see an encrypted copy of my passwords, much less store it.

If a centralized master copy is essential, 1password should deploy software that centralizes credentials at the organisation level... The software should be owned by the customer. instead, right now the 1Password architecture has them hosting hundreds of millions of credentials on their servers. While the data is encrypted from their eyes, doesn't centralization make them a hacker magnet? Hackers could obtain encrypted stores with hundreds of millions of credentials and attempt to decrypt them at leisure. Or they focus their hacking efforts on 1Password's communication interfaces and endpoints. That make me queasy.

With 1 billion terminal sessions made per week to its mainframe cloud, IBM spins off its thriving hosted mainframe business. The IPO is valued at 1 Trillion dollars.

Then the microprocessor and PC revolution breaks.

Even if the people who know how didn't move on over the last few decades, surely they would have been fired some time in the last few months as part of the overall effort to weaken the US economy, health, and defenses.

Is there anyone left who knows how to do the job? Can they be hired back, after the Epstein shutdown is over?

Apple could just stop being evil.

Problem: adversary has you in a headlock.

Solution: wait for the adversary to change allegiance.

This sure sounds like something that can be completely solved by getting a new account. But then there's this hilarious excuse for insisting that the problem remain:

Although users can "abandon the accounts and start again with new Apple IDs," the report notes that doing so means losing all purchased apps, along with potentially years' worth of photos and videos.

If there's any risk of losing photos and videos, then they should already be working on fixing their backup system immediately, before something bad happens. This isn't so much a problem as a wake up call that they haven't yet done one of the most basic first-things in using computers: get data backups going.

Loss of access to an external data storage account is just one of the risks they aren't protecting themselves against, with regard to that data. (And geez, since they're already cloud-storage enthusiasts, what was their plan for what they were going to do if they ever found a better cloud provider?)

As for proprietary apps: same problem, they already faced the risk even without this parental splitup. Either stop doing that, or accept that you occasionally have to repurchase your proprietary software. Given how much crap is monthly subscriptions now, I suspect there's very little loss here anyway, since having to continuously repay is already the status quo for an increasing number of .. [sighing and trying to remember to be nice] .. inexperienced computer users.

But if it's not (yay! it shouldn't be), then either suck it up that you have to re-do a "one-time" purchase, or [gasp] contact the manufacturer of that software and tell them the problem.

Oh, it's some company who is unresponsive or says "fuck you, pay me?" Well, then you're the one who decided to do business with an unresponsive company. You were already fucked and just hadn't run into the already-looming disaster anyway. Glad you're learning about how stupid that was while you're a teenager instead of later, when the stakes are going to be even higher.

All objections to "get a new account" are bullshit. And worse, they just point out problems that these people can/get-to/should face now, before anything bad happens.

The best way to innovate in gaming is to have..

.. more game-makers.

Kids, become a programmer. You can write games yourself, or you can join an existing project. There are many to choose from, but also, there's always room for one more.

a high accident rate will cause them to get less rich

I'm reminded of a scene from one of my favorite movies:

[ED-209 kills someone]

Dick Jones: "I'm sure it's only a glitch. A temporary setback."

The Old Man: "You call this a glitch?! We're scheduled to begin construction in six months. Your "temporary setback" could cost us fifty million dollars in interest payments alone!"

In violation of "Federal anti-discrimination laws" seems to have been the key clause. It's unlikely you are in violation.

Why not have your lawyer list out all your DEI initiatives to the granting body and say "are you OK with this?". An OK by the granting makes it unlikely they can claw it back.

The companies like door dash etc do not care if you do not deliver. They list you anyway, pay full price for the food, slap a 35% fee on top and sell your food.

Then something doesn't add up. My understanding is that the fees that the delivery company charges the restaurant are what is hurting the restaurants. But if your restaurant doesn't have a contract with the delivery company (i.e. "they list you anyway") then that fee is $0, isn't it?

So what's the harm? It sounds like any fees the restaurants are paying, are something they've opted into.

I can see how bad experiences (caused by the delivery service which otherwise wouldn't have happened) could reduce order frequency, but that doesn't seem to be what people are talking about here.

How did "The Innovation That’s Killing Restaurant Culture" turn into "How Delivery Is Destroying American Restaurants?"