The article doesn't really cover it, but the "offending" image was cover art for the book Mandate Of Heaven. That will be book 11 in the Beneath the Dragoneye Moons series by Selkie Myth.

I call BULLSHIT.

First, my local McDonalds(and all other McDonalds nationwide) still accept drive thru and walk in orders, meaning your issue is entirely local to one specific store.

Second, I just downloaded and installed the McDonalds app on my rooted Android phone. This means that your issue is with your phone, specifically.

This is the definition of a Personal Problem.

The bigger news is that this exploit worked by tricking the POS terminal into thinking the card was a Visa card, and using a still unpatched vulnerability to bypass PIN checks.

In other words, Visa cards are still vulnerable and Visa users can do nothing to protect any card they have with wireless capability, except for keeping their card in a faraday cage at all times.

Patents aren't the problem. All of the companies involved are scaling up production as fast as they can, and right now they are hitting hard material limits. There just aren't enough supplies being manufactured to scale up any faster. Patents were never the problem.

Derek Lowe has a very good write-up at https://blogs.sciencemag.org/p... that explains it well enough that even a politician could understand it.

I've read the article twice and I still don't see how the cloud intersects with 5G radio. Are they putting their cell towers in AWS datacenters? That doesn't seem likely.

This article reads like someone chewed up a press release and regurgitated it directly into a news article.

This appears to be just a fancy database of credentials, using blockchain to store them. But from what I can see, there's nothing here about the verification process.

So you end up needing a whole other system that people can use to submit documents, have them verified, and then entered in the blockchain.

It doesn't matter how secure your blockchain is if I can go to my local Document Entry office, and slip the guy $50 to enter my "diploma" into the system. Or, more likely, steal the credentials of one of your document verifiers and sell access for $20 per document.

And since people viewing the credentials can't even see the original, just the "Verified" status, it'll be nearly impossible to tell the fakes from the real ones.

In other words, as with most blockchain "solutions", they haven't really solved anything, just rearranged the problems into new configurations.

I'm thinking they did anticipate it. After all, is there any better publicity than when a corporation announces a horrible new policy, guaranteed to generate massive outrage, and then walks it back with a very loud apology?

So let's say, just theoretically (since this could never actually happen), that Apple discovers that a platform is being used by violent extremists to plot the bloody overthrow of of our government. Further, that when Apple asks the platform about this, the platform basically says "Fuck off, that's not our problem!".

At this point, what is Apple's recourse? Should they just meekly submit to having their name in the headlines with phrasing like "iPhone app used to plot violent insurrection, Apple to take no action!"

Of course not, they'll do what any sane company will do and terminate their relationship with the offending party. The alternative is to say businesses don't have the right to choose who they do business with, and are obligated to do business with even the most toxic parties.

The European Commission is realizing that Tesla has a massive headstart on them, and that's not good. Unlike GPS, the receivers for these systems are expensive and fairly bulky (Starlink is pizza box sized, iirc). This means you can't count on manufacturers making multi-band receivers that accept like the GPS/Glonass/Galileo navigation units do.

If Starlink gets decent market penetration in Europe, getting people to buy new receivers and switch to a new system will be a huge obstacle.

They need to move fast or they might as well not move at all.

The reason they got in trouble isn't that they used user data for training their facial recognition AI, it's that they did it without burying a clause in their EULA allowing it.

Does anyone think that even now, if they read their Facebook EULA that there isn't some vague clause authorizing them to do whatever they want with their data for "business purposes"?

This kind of thing will only affect small companies with bad lawyers.

Reposting to fix formatting: This article is wrong on so many levels, I honestly don't know where to start.

First, it advocates fixing a monopoly problem (All speech concentrated in Facebook and Twitter) by trying to change liability laws. There is an entire section of our legal code devoted to fixing monopolies. Use the right tool for the job.

Second, it rather naively assumes that:

A) Facebook and twitter will only remove the most controversial speech.

In reality, once you open the door for liability, they become liable for literally anything anyone gets upset about enough to sue over. They may win most of the court cases, but they are at the mercy of anyone who can afford to file court papers, nationwide. The costs of the cases and the risks of losing even one case will mean that their only option will be to ban anything more controversial than "I had a salad for lunch".

B) Other social media companies will be willing to take risks that Facebook and Twitter won't.

If a company the size of Facebook, with it's thousands of moderators, can't even slow down the deluge of bad content, let alone stop it, what makes anyone think that a smaller company will have better luck? The worst actors aren't going to suddenly go quiet if Facebook bans a few of them, they will simply go flood some other smaller provider that has even less capability to deal with the problem. Said provider will quickly be sued into oblivion.

C) That an open internet forum is even possible if the provider becomes legally liable for user posts or for failing to moderate said posts.

On any given day, there are literally tens of millions of posts on a forum like Facebook. It is quite literally impossible to have a human review all, or even a fraction of those posts. You can try to have a user reporting system, but experience has shown that any system like that is vulnerable to brigading and mass abuse by people who want their opponents silenced. Practically speaking, moderating any large internet forum either requires that every single post be hidden until approved by a moderator, or that the moderators are protected by the equivalent of Section 230.



In other words, the internet exists in it's current form because of Section 230. You can try removing it, but what you get as a result won't be an open internet forum. It will either be a completely locked down locked down site where all but the most uncontroversial posts are deleted, or a vile cesspool of a site (like what happened to Parler) where people feel free to vent the worst impulses of humanity directly onto your screen with no moderation.

This article is wrong on so many levels, I honestly don't know where to start. First, it advocates fixing a monopoly problem (All speech concentrated in Facebook and Twitter) by trying to change liability laws. There is an entire section of our legal code devoted to fixing monopolies. Use the right tool for the job. Second, it rather naively assumes that: A) Facebook and twitter will only remove the most controversial speech. In reality, once you open the door for liability, they become liable for literally anything anyone gets upset about enough to sue over. They may win most of the court cases, but they are at the mercy of anyone who can afford to file court papers, nationwide. The costs of the cases and the risks of losing even one case will mean that their only option will be to ban anything more controversial than "I had a salad for lunch". B) Other social media companies will be willing to take risks that Facebook and Twitter won't. If a company the size of Facebook, with it's thousands of moderators, can't even slow down the deluge of bad content, let alone stop it, what makes anyone think that a smaller company will have better luck? The worst actors aren't going to suddenly go quiet if Facebook bans a few of them, they will simply go flood some other smaller provider that has even less capability to deal with the problem. Said provider will quickly be sued into oblivion. C) That an open internet forum is even possible if the provider becomes legally liable for user posts or for failing to moderate said posts On any given day, there are literally tens of millions of posts on a forum like Facebook. It is quite literally impossible to have a human review all, or even a fraction of those posts. You can try to have a user reporting system, but experience has shown that any system like that is vulnerable to brigading and mass abuse by people who want their opponents silenced. Practically speaking, moderating any large internet forum either requires that every single post be hidden until approved by a moderator, or that the moderators are protected by the equivalent of Section 230. In other words, the internet exists in it's current form because of Section 230. You can try removing it, but what you get as a result won't be an open internet forum. It will either be a completely locked down locked down site where all but the most uncontroversial posts are deleted, or a vile cesspool of a site (like what happened to Parler) where people feel free to vent the worst impulses of humanity directly onto your screen with no moderation.

This sounds like the most basic process automation technology that factories have been using for decades. Measure a property of your product, and then if it deviates from the standard, correct it. They probably added the fluff about AI because it wouldn't be newsworthy otherwise.

Is this even a real thing? I can see the verge article, but the link in the summary and the link in the article both point to a non-existent page. I also can't find anything searching LG's news portal or on LG's YouTube page. It seems unlikely, but all evidence points to this story being entirely fabricated.

Next thing you're going to tell me is that some of these ransomware gangs are run by criminals or other untrustworthy people. I don't think I can handle the shock, someone fetch the smelling salts!