Now I can read Tolkien in the original Middle Earth languages and Star Trek novels in the original Vulcan.

Or at least a cheap facsimilie thereof.

>So I'm flipping through cameras, and there were cameras in pretty weird places. Like the playroom for the children in pediatrics. Really, I don't want to know.
Either because parents wanted to be able to watch their kids, because of liability insurance reasons/fear of lawsuit, or because something you don't want to know about happened in the past/fear of lawsuit if it happens again.

I'm hoping it's the first one. It's not something I would encourage today due to hacking potential, but 10-20 years ago it was the "new shiny thing" for day-care centers to have cameras the parents could log into so they could watch their kids. Sadly, too many of these used easy-to-guess passwords or they had other ways to let just anyone peek in on the kids.

1. There are times companies know someone is leaking and deliberately look the other way, either because the leak itself is useful, future leaks by this person are useful, or the person is too highly valued to take action against. "Off the record, our next game is going to have an exciting new character that will blow your socks off, stay tuned."

2. Then there are leaks that are so harmful to a company that action must be taken. "Here's the entire source code for our next game, including trade secrets worth billions."

3. But in between there are many leaks that are usually "not worth dealing with" until you need to use the leak as an excuse to fire someone.

We'll never know if these leaks are really in category #2 or category #3.

My hunch is that at least one of the fired employees was targeted for firing and possibly one or more were "caught up" in the firing because "if we fire one leaker from that forum, we have to fire them all or we'll be sued." This is just a hunch, I have no actual information to say if my hunch is right or not.

>That museum deserves to lose its entire collection.
If it were a privately-owned museum I might agree with you.

As a publicly owned museum owned by the people of France, I can't agree with you.

I will say that more than one person involved in the Louvre's security needs to be sacked if not prosecuted for criminal negligence, assuming any such laws apply.

I thought the password was ervuoL.

> Betting against computing has never been a good idea since before I was born.

Betting against "computing" in the broad sense may be a bad bet, but betting against CERTAIN TYPES of computing technology has been a good bet. If you put all your money in long-term bets on home/business ADSL technology in the early 2000s, you would've taken a financial bath as other technologies, like copper-cable-tv-based tech, wireless tech, and fiber tech overtook ADSL.

Will "what we call AI in 2025,"* as a type of computing technology, be a market success or a flash-in-the-pan while something else does the same job better or cheaper? Time will tell.

* the definition of "AI" changes over the years

>What could be more corrupt?
Corrupt entities around the world are reading this post and saying "challenge accepted."

>Aren't all of their Christmas adverts essentially the same anyway?
No, some use artificial intelligence, some use real intelligence.

Bring back the mid-to-late-20th-century TV ads, remastered or re-shot for modern televisions. No need to use any kind CGI for the pre-CGI-era ads.

Until a few years ago, you didn't have to sign in to post as Anonymous Coward.

Now, you at least have to go through the trouble of creating a throwaway account if you want to do a drive-by post.

If your product/process is necessary for society and it can't help but use large amounts of electricity, use cleaner/greener electricity.

What this might mean in practice:

When building a new plant, build a solar/wind/other-relatively-green electricity plant next to it.

If you have a large plant that can be retrofitted cost-effectively with greener power, do so.

If you can't, investigate ways you can buy green power from the grid without impacting the bottom line. This may mean pooling your resources with other large companies to build a centrally located green-power plant.

All of these are years-to-decades-long projects, not something that will be done in 2-3 years much less in the next quarter.

In countries that can't make you lie but can make you not tell others about their warrants, a warranty canary is a good, legal way to communicate that a court or police force has seized data and put you under a gag order.

In countries where the government can "make you lie" by making you continue to say that there has been no government data-seizure, warranty canaries are useless - "killing the canary" will get you in the same legal hot water as announcing "the government took your data."

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the countries whose police or court actions were leaked to Israel take whatever legal action they can against Google and Amazon.

No need to affirmatively say anything, just stop talking.

Waranty canary

Only allow manufacturers to ship "China-contaminated" network routers or similar equipment if detailed specifications of the "China-contaminated" parts are published that show nothing hostile is in the device AND there is a feasible method to prove that the "China-contaminated" parts of the hardware match the specifications.

If China is not a threat then leave TP-Link alone.

Their lawyer's AI-assistant probably told them they had to.

All kidding aside, with today's legal climate I'm surprised this didn't happen sooner.