at least from other companies, so they can have all the data for themselves

As an ex-Apple employee I can say at least a decade ago Apple didn’t want your data, like it wasn’t a “non-goal” to get it, it was a goal to NOT get it. They viewed it as inherently of little value, but having the data means they have to protect it, a data breach is bad for the corporate image, as is a warrant attack (i.e. any government forcing Apple to give up customer data was also viewed as bad for the corporate image, and it is expensive to decide which things to fight in court and fight them but even worse to just roll over for any request, and far far better to just not have any data so “yes, we turned it all over -- we had nothing, and we made a copy of that and put it in this empty envelope”; most of that was before Apple publicly started pushing privacy as a thing the iPhone (and to a lesser extent other products) bring. Which increases the downside of having anything that can get stolen or legally searched.

I’m not saying Apple does it out of the goodness of their hearts, or that all the board members/upper management actually believe privacy is a valuable thing to offer, but they do largely agree that making a promise at that level and breaking it is bad, or that was the view about a decade ago. Which is a big part of why most Apple product that could make use of more private data don’t really have it unless they can have it on only on your device(s) or as an encrypted blob that Apple doesn’t have the keys for.

Someone useless occupies a high position because he convinces peers he is somehow insightful

Not really useless, he was an ok design lead for iTunes...and I think he did Xcode design a little later as well that wasn’t awful. So I think this was more of an example of being better at getting himself promoted than actually doing the work after that point.

Sure it plays an important role. The problem with it is that the meta-language of modern techology design is enshittification.

I don’t think that is true in general. In specific cases, sure. In this specific case? No, Dye’s designs are the regular kind of shit. He loves information hiding, and isn’t god at usability, aces ability, or legibility. Hierarchy of information isn’t a strong suit either (other then things he hides by default, as opposed to shows by default). Back when he was “just” the design lead for iTunes he wasn’t too bad, running all Apple UX? Nope.

... except instead of shoes becoming the only profitable product to manufacture, it's chatbots. Nobody knows why, but when it's all over, the only survivors will be those who evolved into computer-illiterate deaf-mutes.

Agreed; but it is possible to make a Metro-sized car that is safe by modern standards and still gets 40+mpg. The Smart ForTwo and the Scion IQ are two examples.

This is exactly end to end encryption, and the so-called "security researcher" appears to have no idea what he is talking about. So:

Yes, but only because most Americans are unwilling to drive a Metro-sized car anymore. They've been conditioned to think small/lightweight cars are unsafe or unmanly or etc.

The invisible hand of the free market solves a lot of things, but it's never quite figured out how to avoid the tragedy of the commons. Everybody wants to live on a livable planet, but nobody wants to pay for the technology required to keep that way.

Being inexpensive to purchase and operate is one advantage scooters have over automobiles; the other is that they are small enough to maneuver quickly through heavy traffic and easier to find a parking spot for in congested areas.

This is why such people should never be in positions of power.

What you're trying to do here is deal with the world the way you think it should be, not the way it actually is. So saying, "You can just do this" if the world was the way you think is should isn't a particularly well supported assertion.

I don't think slashdot has had any actual developers working on its since the early 2000s. It's a mature legacy codebase, destined to run as-is until it can't anymore, then go away.

"The whole point of this is because Waymo isn't supposed to make those mistakes,"

There is no whole point in such a complex issue, but I would like to tell this person that the idea is part of the argument for automated vehicles is they may make less mistakes. Perfection shouldn't be a condition for improvement.

The Dell pledge is not for children born during "that narrow period of election significance" but rather applies to children under age ten that were not born during said period. AFAICT, the kids getting a thousand bucks do not benefit from this pledge at all. The Dell pledge also only applies to children who live in zip codes where the median HHI is under $150k.

Dell is piggybacking off of the infrastructure that already needs to be put in place to administer the accounts created by congress. I really don't understand why people seem to be so angry about this. The only real connection to Darth Cheeto is what the funds are named, and Dell didn't name them, congress did.

I really hope that Waymo's cars aren't relying on their Nader-beepers to avoid killing people. They should be (and AFAIK are) relying instead on their video cameras, LIDARs, and other sensors to stop the car before it hits the wayward kid/technician.

Yes, they should have done it the right way instead!

Err, what was the right way? It's not obvious to me, given that Microsoft doesn't have design control over the hardware its software runs on.