So they fold corporation on paper, walk away from the loan and open up a new corporation that gets to use the facility.

Dude it's 2025, by now you should know how this game is played.

Sure, they had to sell their stock, including the parts needed to make the machines. At that time they were also still at least assembling them.

I realize not reading the article is something of a /. tradition, but I've literally quoted part of the summary where they're pretending that nothing is done to mitigate brute-force attacks (which as you rightfully pointed out, has been recognized as threat for as long as there has been an infosec industry).

I wouldn't be wearing my captain obvious hat if the article hasn't pretended that brute force attacks are some kind of scary new threat, of which there is absolutely no defense besides making your password contain a minimum of one each of the following attribute:

An uppercase letter
A lowercase letter
A special character
Your favorite emoji
A DNA sample from your pet
A short essay on whether you think streaming services are fairly priced
Cannot reuse a previously used password

IIci September 1989, Quadra 700 October 1991, in almost the same case. Two years, one month.

This is why anyone with half a brain rate limits failed password attempts and then locks the account after too many failures. If your code allows an attacker to just hammer the authentication API, you suck as a programmer and should feel bad.

That statement was stupid, even absurd the first times that it was used — by the Reich wing. The entire reason I'm still using it when speaking to them is to rub their noses in how fucking stupid it was.

You're two steps behind me as usual, but at least you're getting there.

Insert Travolta looking around meme here. This is me, looking for fucks.

Yeah it's a real mess we've made, easier just to disallow it from vehicles altogether than fix that quandary, if companies want it that bad they can offer it as a physical addition to the car, it can contain the data collection and transmitting systems and the customer can pay or be paid appropriately for it, just like insurance companies offered.

I'm open to the idea companies find value in that data, if my personal goings on is worth something I would like the option to sell that if someone is paying but we should have control over that information. Let me access my global advertising profile, hell, I'll keep it up to date with my preferences.

If the airlines are acting as a de facto division of the government by providing them with your personal data, then they should be treated as such. That means they should follow simple rules for protecting PII like collecting and retaining the minimum needed.

You mean like when he claimed the iPhone would be all webapps?

Let's face it, Jobs' only superpower was being a super dick to employees. This can only take you so far.

Since he's living rent-free in your head, can we assume you're the one responsible for the rsilvergun-impersonating LLM spam?

I forget which town but one of them immediately removed all the cameras when somebody did a foi request.

You're not going to find out where the billionaires are going because like Steve Jobs used to do they hide their license plates.

But your shitty little Republican mayor who frequents the local gay bar doesn't have the resources to do that. A

Businesses only need to hide it if they are the data controller or the data processor engaged in confidence. YOUR PUBLIC PROFILE IS NOT THIS. *YOU* chose not to hide it. It is clearly mentioned that your profile is available and shared with others. It's your choice not to include a photo or your name in it.

Whether it's personal or not is irrelevant. It is published, by you. When you setup WhatsApp you're explicitly told it'll be available for other's to see. You've explicitly authorised people to view it.

Your name is considered personal information when you enter an agreement to share it in confidence. That's not what happens in public profiles. In other news Phonebooks used to exist, vast databases printed out and delivered to everyone in the city containing the PII of everyone else.

There will always be a few crazies, but the reality is the overwhelming supermajority of details in the phonebook were 100% accurate and available.

The number isn't Gemini users, it's AI Overviews. They are *ONLY* counting the search.