open source might have prevented bad passwords and lax security, because open source might have been more motivation to make it secure rather easier. It's a question of their motivations; open source might not have been profit based like Ring's was. Secure = hard = fewer sales

Ring had a choice. Sell a product that was easy to use and would sell to the widest range of consumer. Or a secure device that might turn people off.

They chose the former.

And yes, this is what regulation is meant for. At some point "smart" people realize the market has failed and decisions are being made for the wrong reasons. Otherwise we'd all still be driving death traps that pollute harming both the owner and everyone around them just like insecure devices do.

And taking your point another step further, they had no motivation to enforce stronger security practices because it is "hard". They would have been worried users would opt-out by not finishing the install, returning their purchase, or not buying at all. Making it simple for [insert adverb of choice] people was a business choice made to ensure sales.

While I hear you, the fact that the announcements were made after the election, which REALLY pissed off 45, makes me a little less worried about them having been pressured by the administration; or at least not very effectively pressured. Hell, at this point 45 would love it if Biden didn't get a functioning vaccine any sooner than possible because he'd have something to crow about after he's evicted.

But again, I hear you and I too am concerned about just the overall general pressure by all parties to get something out the door as quickly as possible.

While I understand the hint of "fuck you" this might imply, do keep in mind that you're assuming no one else knows about the bug already. THAT is one of the reasons for putting pressure on and to then release. First it forces the issue to be addressed and second it notifies the user that "hey guess what, you've got a security risk that isn't being fixed and you should be aware of it so you can take your own precautions."

There really is a 100% legitimate reason for public disclosure. Reasonable people can debate timelines and how to responsibly disclose, but there IS a risk that grows the longer a vulnerability exists without remedy and without warning.

We all know what someone means, colloquially, when they use the phrase "Alpha". But I'll play along. So what word/phrase would YOU use to describe an Overbearing Douche Bro ... never mind.

That presumes resources (time and money) are limitless. They aren't. So then you have to ask, what opportunity was lost taking this action that was, with little disagreement it think, a low P of success. There were studies in works to tell us if HCQ worked. So then it's a question of when to pull the trigger to invest or not invest. Reasonable people can agree on a range, and i believe most reasonable people would agree the investments made in this case were on the premature site of that range. Now they've lost the time and money that could have been spent elsewhere.

That is a reasonable opinion to take and well stated.

It is, however, not the consensus opinion of the majority of public health policy expert.

Perhaps, you know, that money would have been better spent on something with a higher probability of succeeding. Maybe even hydroxychloroquine AFTER a few more studies came out.

So, you know, thanks for your interest in national security.

Good point. Is there any chance the reason is more benign and yet horrible; does he have family they can threaten on China?

Do you have an example where money was taken / not refunded and services denied?

Add to this, as I did in my other post ... and long-haul trucks that beat up on roads maybe without paying the local tax can themselves pay by locality since they are already fairly well tracked. So no new infrastructure really even needed there either.

Probably the only caveat might be setting up a system so people can pay in smaller increments than annually as that might be a big bill for some. Maybe it could be setup as a quarterly estimated bill based on your previous year's mileage (with a provision to manually adjust if you know it's going to be different) with a true-up at registration time. But of course THAT adds some new infrastructure but still seems cheaper than and better than handing out trackers for a third-party to track.

So what. Unless there is some net migration of passenger cars from one state, thru another, and to a final one, each state just concerns itself with collecting revenue from its residents who benefit the most from their own roads.

As for long-haul trucks which put a lot of wear and tear on multiple drive-thru-states, well, they are already tracked so it would be easy to proportion out their mileage and pay accordingly.

And if you just REALLY need to collect a few extra bucks from those freeloading cross-state passenger car drivers, add a special tax on highway charging stations. Don't want to charge locals, scan their license to waive the fee or even just base it on their CC info when they swipe. Worried thru-drivers will drive to a non-higway-taxed meter, then charge it on all meters with a provision to give locals that discount.

Problem solved, no special tracking meter needed.

All you need is a bluetooth receiver to plug into your amp. It'll sound like -ish being bluetooth, but who cares about sound quality anymore /s

But seriously, yeah a quality BT reciever will let you continue to use your speakers.

They sell it to the highest bidder.

But Ma' Team Win!!!

LIBRUL TEERS!!!

[sigh]