Seems unlikely they would be removed, at least until the land reaches a stable state where it can be farmed. But even then, it turns out that solar panels can be good for some crops and for food animals.

Even if their chips do turn out to be actually good, would you trust Intel? Their security has proven to be lacking, and they use a lot of abusive tactics like artificially limiting features and having short lived sockets.

Why? Why not let the device worry about if the update completed? And what is the issue with a ping to say update complete? That's not decrypting and sharing your private messages.

Skylake was good for its time(other than Meltdown and Spectre vulnerabilities), but Intel let itself get stuck with no design improvements due to being unable to get from 14nm to 10nm. Performance cores are power hungry, but do have decent performance. The problem is, Intel waters down its chips with all of those e-cores that make machines run like crap.

Intel talks about the future all the time, and has been for well over ten years now. Our next product will be so amazing! They even have been saying that two days after a product launch, indicating that they don't even respect the latest products enough to stop talking about how great those future products are. Those who parrot Intel are also in that mode of, "ignore how things are now, because the future will be so much better!". The only reason for doing this is to keep Intel stock prices from going back down to $20-$21 per share, so, pump and dump for Intel stock.

Sure, it's POSSIBLE for Intel to come back, AMD managed to come back from being almost bankrupt, but that was due to Lisa Su being very product focused instead of talking like a CEO, she talks like the president of the company. A good president won't hype things to the moon when times are tough, they will focus on getting the company back on track with better products, which will be better in the long term for the COMPANY. Intel is more focused on the stock price for all of their hype.

So, what's better, being honest while promoting the best characteristics of your current product offerings, or say how great everything is and will be, while clearly ignoring the failings of your products so things CAN actually get better?

It's not disruptive, but it'll help a bit. And yes, pharmacists are important. But do you need them for ALL orders? Even if you're doing a routine refill for a medication that you've been using for years. Or you're picking up an antibiotics prescription. I'm not saying that people should just buy antibiotics without prescription, I'm saying that there's no real need to involve pharmacists in these simple transactions.

Why would it need feedback? They just update the database that the government gives them.

I might be wrong, it's possible, but I think we need a lot more detail on how this will be implemented.

In any case, it's not breaking encryption, it's targeting the apps. It's always been the case that you don't use WhatsApp if you don't want your messages to be seen by law enforcement eventually.

Apple used an image hash that was supposed to work even when the image read transformed slightly, but it was easy to create false positives.

That's not relating to E2EE messaging. It says "become aware", and they are under no obligation to make themselves aware. Only to scan, on device, and block.

It does not send anything anywhere. Show us your citation for this claim that the authorities will be sent blocked images and URLs.

It wouldn't make sense to do so, due to the high false positive rate and the fact that in many member states there would be no way to send those images anywhere without becoming party to the distribution of illegal material.

There's no doubt that AI is developing into a useful tool -- for people who understand its limitations and how long it is going to take to work the bugs out. But people have a long track record of getting burned by not understanding the gap between promise and delivery and, in retrospect, missing the point.

I think we should take a lesson from the history of the dot com boom and following bust. A lot of people got burned by their foolish enthusiasm, but in the end the promise was delivered, and then some. People just got the timescale for delivering profits wrong, and in any case their plans for getting there were remarkably unimaginative, e.g., take a bricks and mortar business like pet supplies and do exactly that on the Internet. They by in large completely missed all the *new* ways of making money ubiquitous global network access created.

I think in the case of AI, everybody knows a crash is coming. In fact they're planning on it. Nobody expects there to be hundreds or even dozens of major competitors in twenty years. They expect there to be one winner, an Amazon-level giant, with maybe a handful of also-rans subsisting off the big winner's scraps; tolerated because they at least in theory provide a legal shield to anti-trust actions.

And in this winner-take-all scenario, they're hoping to be Jeff Bezos -- only far, far more so. Bezos owns about 40% of online retail transactions. If AI delivers on its commercial promise, being the Jeff Bezos of *that* will be like owning 40% of the labor market. Assuming, as seems likely, that the winning enterprise is largely unencumbered by regulation and anti-trust restrictions, the person behind it will become the richest, and therefore the most powerful person in history. That's what these tech bros are playing for -- the rest of us are just along for the ride.

The UK now requires them to check ID before allowing access to some content. For sites like Discord that effectively means everyone needs to present ID, because they don't want to control what people say on their site before publishing it.

Let's see how many UK users who verified their age are in there, and what the fallout is.

From the summary it sounds like it's not the bubble bursting that they are worried about, it's that Trump might massively devalue the US Dollar by taking control of the US Central Bank. Once it loses its independence and is subject to the whims of a man whose companies have been bankrupt many, many times, it will become another joke currency and not the world reserve it once was.

Unfortunately the website in question is not accurate. For example: https://fightchatcontrol.eu/#o...

"Breaking Encryption
Weakening or breaking end-to-end encryption exposes everyone's communicationsâ"including sensitive financial, medical, and private dataâ"to hackers, criminals, and hostile actors."

That is not true. The requirement is for the app that sends or receives the message to scan it locally, against a database of known illegal images and URLs. No encryption is broken, the message is scanned only by apps that have access to the plaintext so that the user can send/receive the message.

The other claims seem accurate and are much more compelling. Apple tried it, it didn't work, it can't work, and it won't be effective.

If we are going to fight this, it needs to be done based on true and accurate information. I imagine most of these MEPs will be told that the claims are not true, and dismiss all opposition as being based on disinformation.