So what you're saying is "block means BLOCK" is somehow bad.

A code generator will invariably produce code which is buggier than the generator.

Caveat emptor.

"You've stolen what I've rightfully kidnapped!"

An Executive Order issued Monday implemented a full hiring freeze on all Federal positions within the executive branch, except for military recruitment or positions related to public safety or national security. The positions cut within these advisory committees meet that definition.

That said, several departments are announcing broad exemptions to that hiring freeze. Whether these advisory committees meet the criteria to be exempted remains, as the saying goes, a game-time decision.

"Elsevier responded that the editors shouldn't be paying attention to language, grammar, readability, consistency, or accuracy of proper nomenclature or formatting."

What do they see as the editor's job, then? Because to me, it sounds like what they're saying is that editors shouldn't be...you know...EDITING.

Users are moving to BlueSky, among other reasons, because "Block" means BLOCK. Once one user blocks another, there can be no further interaction between the two users unless the first user removes that block. Contrast this to the former Twitter, where a recent policy change allows blocked users to continue to view the blocking user's posts and comments, arguably creating a vehicle for cyberstalking...or worse.

In combination with a distinct lack of advertising, no algorithms that promote or demote individual posts, and the ability to read followed accounts' posts in reverse chronological order instead of scattered across the timeline by the previously-mentioned algorithms, the attractiveness of BlueSky becomes more apparent. In short, it's what Twitter was in the beginning, but with better guardrails.

The person who put the AirTags in their recycles will be quietly arrested and charged with one or more of: industrial espionage, improper disposal of hazardous materials, stalking, or anything else TX AG Paxton cares to come up with.

Trying to sue Amazon won't have any effect whatsoever, after last week's Loper-Bright decision by the Supreme Court. If Amazon lose, they will appeal and cite that case, and the courts will de-fang the FERC and let Amazon buy as much power as they want, because the courts are now the final arbiters of regulations, and the actual regulatory agencies are just decorative puppet theatre.

More and more tech companies are sinking their teeth into the same approach: customers don't actually buy anything from them. The customers only rent the products. It doesn't matter if it's hardware or software; the overarching approach today is exactly the same. Even if one has physical media (which, by design, has become increasingly rare) from which to load and run software, if an online handshake must be performed to enable any of that software's functionality, the publisher can turn that handshake off at the drop of an accountant's whim, and you're left with what may be a rather expensive coaster.

That's as far as I go.

This will be filed under "if you can't make a better product, tear down your competitor in court".

'Nuff said.

This is nothing more than closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. Pay attention to what they AREN'T saying: "We'll stop selling your data."

'Nuff said.

As I recall, Ada uses Algol syntax, e.g. := instead of = for assigning values to variables and = instead of == for equality tests. Ada does allow dot notation; I don't know when it came into existence, but it's been there since I first learned it.

The biggest gripe I've ever heard from developers coming from the C-family world trying to learn Ada is that Ada doesn't permit mathematical operations on pointers...or, at least, it didn't as of the Ada-95 variant, which is what I last used in class.

C and its derivatives have enjoyed popularity because of the low-level access to hardware provided. That same functionality has also led to a huge number of security holes and exploits.

Other languages, many of which are already considered "safer" for development of critical software (e.g. Ada), already exist. However, most of them are relegated to niche markets, and efforts to expand their acceptance have been met by resistance. The cost barrier to entry for Ada, for example, is simply prohibitive for many development teams.

Perhaps more emphasis should be placed on the development process, instead of the specific language used for development. If, for example, teams creating critical software (and the term "critical" is left to the interpretation of the reader) were to follow the JPL "Power Of Ten" development rules, the specific language being used for development wouldn't matter. Take away avenues for safety and security issues to enter the code, instead of relying on the compiler to catch and flag those avenues.

That's as far as I go.

It's been headed in this direction for years. HP is just the first company to say it out loud: You do NOT own the technology you bought and paid for, you only rent it.

COPPA was supposed to take care of this years ago...yet we still see pre-teens routinely popping up on sites where they have no business being, often enabled by older siblings and parents. So, I ask this question:

How do laws with weak enforcement mechanisms, or without any realistic enforcement mechanisms at all, do anything except weaken the entire structure of law?