But I think it is a good example for regulations. I see a problem with some attempts for more surveillance currently, but all the regulation of products and privacy laws are something valuable.

FUD means fear, uncertainty, doubt. When Microsoft told people that Linux may have a license problem and that the viral GPL is cancer, that was FUD. They wanted people to hesitate to switch to Linux, not because they knew it would be a problem, but because they didn't want to risk the possibility of it being or becoming a problem for them.

Currently people are spreading rumors how bad data centers were, who never have seen one from close. In particular Youtubers seem to be happy to explain people they were evil, using arguments that would imply that a lot of people living near an existing one already suffered the bad consequences.

There are surely details that can and should be discussed. How near is the next apartment? How is the electricity supply? But there are other things that will probably not be relevant, like the spread fear about depleting water supplies. Most modern DCs rely mainly on closed loop cooling. The next thing is the idea that they would poison the water supply. One evidence video shows brown tap water. What do the people think data centers would do?! The reason for the tap water was the construction site (I think they actually broke some rules), because the data center wasn't even finished at that time. Criticizing the construction company is completely valid, but the things get taken out of context to tell "data centers bad".

The main problem I have with that is, that most people telling that clearly use it as proxy argument for other (possibly more valid) concerns. When they say "I fear that AI may replace my job", that's honest and something one can discuss. On the other hand, they risk that the outcome of the discussion may not be to their favor. So they take the proxy argument to say "AI hurts the environment" trying to stop AI by attacking another topic than they actually care about. That's not only dishonest, but also prevents people from discussing the actual problem. If AI replaces a lot of jobs, this may be an economic problem and should be addressed. Even that singular case of that person can be discussed to find good solutions (or to find out, that their job may be still required), but that doesn't work when they talk about electricity, water, and possible environmental damange.

Not long ago I've seen another FUD argument. Someone posted an aerial picture of some site with forest around it. Everything nice and green. Then they posted a picture of the same site with the data center built and the trees all brown. The environmental damage must be huge, no? What poison did the data center release to kill all the trees? The explanation was simple: The first picture was taken in summer, the second in winter and the color of the trees was unrelated to the DC.

EU has pretty strict regulations. In particular US people make fun of it and talk about how companies can compete less, but in the end it means that the citizens can assume that nobody is dumping radioactive waste in their local lake and that the USB charger they bought won't burn their house down because a missing extra capacitor would make the production 5 cent more expensive.

AI agents have different level of access. You can of course give it automatic access and let it delete all your files if it needs more disk space, but you can also have it ask you for every action, for not whitelisted actions, or restrict which files it can access. Different software implements different controls, but most have a "YOLO" mode and a more sane mode that doesn't allow it to delete your hard drive without asking.

They probably have a "for any reason or no reason at all" clause in the fineprint. Most services do, because they don't want to discuss in court if they were allowed to ban you or not.

Let's say that probably all of us can agree that industries should have proper waste management and there should be tight control, which should be the tighter the more toxic the waste is. Maybe this wasn't clear, but any chemical used in DC's should OF COURSE be disposed in a correct way. The important point was, that a closed loop cooling system with anti corroding chemicals is not the worst offender in industry. That doesn't mean you should just dispose it into the next river. And I guess the US doesn't have the best consumer protection laws.

Do you REALLY think this is a problem? Do you really think nobody thought about this ever before even though there are thousands of data centers being used since decades? Either you're falling for the current propaganda, or you're spreading it.

If you care about chemical pollution, you better not look at real industries. There you have way more and way more toxic waste. So please don't contribute to the "data center bad!" FUD.

What else should they do? You cannot write in the ToS "We reject to follow the governing laws". The only thing you can do is to minimize your own options, like verifying a PIN against a secure element that has a baked in backoff delay.

Even then it is unclear if laws like the patriot act cannot force the company to implement a backdoor in this process so they are able the next time. So maybe the secure element enforces the brute-force protection, but the next update can make the pin entry screen save the pin into not so secure memory (basically acting as keylogger).

I won't expect US devices not to have government backdoors in one way or another. Sure they can talk a lot about secure elements and so on. The actual backdoor is then placed somewhere else and doesn't need to crack that.

If a device is in regular use (no before first unlock state), I for example expect that both Apple and Google are willing to push a special update to the device. Both stores are capable of installing apps without user interaction on the device and any limitations why this usually needs user confirmation when triggered via web can be bypassed by the companies. Both stores run with elevated privileges and can probably push more changes than just installing and updating apps (which still would run in a sandbox).

I would not even fully trust the hardware. It is way harder to find backdoors in there. Again they probably rather target the firmware of the modem or something like this and not the secure element. Every security researcher focuses on if the security features are watertight, so you place something that can access data once the secure element is unlocked somewhere where nobody is looking for it.

That's also why Graykey has less options (they leaked slides some time ago) in the before first unlock state: If the encrypted partition is not mounted (or the FS based encryption not unlocked) you need to target the secure components instead of having some trojan software exfilterating the unlocked data.

Maybe they also want to date someone who isn't an officer themselves? This sounds like inbreeding, let officers only date officers.

Nope. People all went into invite-only discord "servers", abusing a chat system as forum.

Go look up Dunning-Kruger before you call others idiot. And try to understand what "bye" means.

What do you think how long they keep that switch? They removed even minor convenience features like clickselectsall in the address bar (i.e. disabling that clicking the current URL selects the whole line).

The problem with native vertical tabs is, that you need to enable the sidebar revamp, which wastes some horizontal space for the icons to switch between sidebars, which were a simple dropdown in the old implementation.

First "Do your own research" now "Ask an AI" ... Do you know how to deal with damn sources, or are your really just arguing "Pick the first Google/AI result and you'll see"? At the moment you called me an idiot the discussion ended. Go discuss with your AI, if you think that's better than having actual sources. Bye.