Indeed.

All these mayors and governors telling their local law enforcement (you know actual men with guns) to thwart the efforts of federal law enforcement, is a hell of lot closer to 'insurrection' than J6, CHAZ and a lot of those BLM protest looked a lot more like the Whiskey rebellion(s) or Shay's than J6, and we know how those were handled.

The GP should look in mirror and be careful what s/he wishes for..

I do consider taxation theft, there is no purpose to it except for controlling the population. The fact that people accept different *levels* of theft depending on how much money they make just proves how much of theft it is, because they more money someone makes, the fewer people there are in that category of people, given that, it is easier to structure theft in such a way as to convince the majority that they don't suffer as much as the other people, who are hit with a much bigger crime.

Don't forget either the antivax movement cross cuts political lines. RFK was a Democrat until about a year ago...

Some of the deepest bluest granola munching corners of the country and major clusters of antivaxers.

But sure MAGA is the problem...

What happened to slashdot? At one time this racist alt right trash world have been modded down to -1. But instead it's at +5 and This post is at -1. Trump voters are just plain stupid.

> The software had a built-in limit of 200 bot detection features. The enlarged file contained more than 200 entries. The software crashed when it encountered the unexpected file size.

A built in limit is:

if ( rule_count > 200 )
    log_urgent('rule count exceeded')
    break
else
    rule_count++
    process_rule

This sounds like it did not have a built-in limit but rather walked off the end of an array or something when the count went over 200.

That's still fixable. Just like how most computers are air cooled and not water cooled. They could build a very large air cooling tower and not need water at all.

Cooling from cheap to expensive:
1. Take in water, return water some amount hotter. Requires the most water to limit temperature rise.
2. Take in water, evaporate some of the water in a cooling tower. Results in less water, but also takes less water and controls temperature rise better
3. Dry cooling.

Most systems are actually something of a hybrid of the three.

There's yet one more problem (among many): Cryogenic freezing doesn't prevent ice crystals from forming, shattering cell membranes.
Basically, the body is mush where it is critical for it not to be for a successful resuscitation.

If the heart has stopped how do you get the anti-freeze distributed throughout the body? Do they put the person on an artificial heart for a time?

I am curious is if there is really anything to this; or if these cryo firms are just sure, "we'll take your money and freeze your loved ones corpse, and who knows maybe the future will have nearly magic nano bots that can fix the mess we are making anything is possible right?"

If you are a programmer and you are given clear instructions on what is expected, then yes. If you are a programmer and you are not given clear instructions, then no. However if you are technical lead/architect then you really should be responsible for it.

OTOH if you are a programmer and you raise these concerns then you are on your way to become a technical lead/architect.

In my systems I insist we keep a database table of various common passwords (tens of thousands of these) and we do not allow people using them as well.

I heard earlier today that a court has determined that since governments are using all of this data, including license plates, that a FoIA request for all of the license plate data gathered from Flock in a city area for a range of dates was valid.

They want to have a power advantage over their serfs but turning their advantage into a burden changes that dynamic. Something to look into for those so inclined.

We seem to be well past the point of being able to expect them to follow the Law or "do the right thing".

> I see no reason why the government shouldn't be allowed to buy the same data that jim-bob the farmer can purchase.

Jim-bob is likely to face some serious problems if he smashes down your door and drags you away in a pre-dawn raid.

The IRS people get a promotion.

This is why the Constitution places strict limits on the actions of government agents.

(in its original interpretation)

Here I am about to think "damn, people losing their jobs to AI" and then I realize its the "pizza in 4-easy payments" people.

They should probably go all-in on AI as soon as possible. For their investors' sake.

But also entirely predictable. Anyone paying attention for the last 30 years or so should realize by now that:

1) Data aggregated for any purpose will eventually be abused.

It is probably the only thing as certain as death and taxes... (sorry could not resist)

Of the top of my head...

People trying to mis-characterize leisure/personal travel as business expenses. Claims of S-corp business related deductions and credits are generally cited high audit trigger risks. I assume that is because the IRS at least believes they are widely abused.

Just as a general top line way to flag people who have life styles that don't seem align well to their reported incomes...and by extension are likely not reporting things they are required to do. The US tax codes is very well weird, we should never forget. You are for example required to report income from illegal activities, but the 5th amendment protects you from having to disclose what those activities are. So for an example that might fit here:

let's say fraudulently arranged some business travel for yourself to meet a client that does not exist, because you want to take a free trip to Monnaco on the company dime. That trip is income. As far as the IRS is concerned you need to report those 10k business class tickets and those 4k hotel fees you received. They may be curious if that was really a business and just how someone with AGI of 68,000 with three dependents managed to bank roll such an extravagant trip if it wasn't.

It is like saying: someone will do some work for free, because they like it, lets then make sure that we take away the product of their work, they don't need it anyway. How is that a moral stance, how is it good economically? People feel a certain way if someone tries to steal from them. One thing is to work, even if you don't have to, but to understand that the result of your work is yours. It is a completely different proposition to enslave someone just because they can survive without keeping the results of their work. Practically speaking, if someone sees this type of attitude, they choose a different jurisdiction to do their work, where there won't be such blatant abuse.