No one said that. Did you even read the sentence you're quoting? Let alone the rest of the post?

The headline, saying it was about AirPods, is silly.

This "insurance matter" cut and paste of yours is just adorable. What do you think that means exactly?

If six people force you out of your car and drive away with it, you wouldn't call the police, just your insurance company? In this fantasy, do you think the insurance company would pay you . . . without a police report?

Right. Which of those things are ending qualified immunity.

Mmmmmaybe the assault part would, but I really doubt it. I mean Chauvin is in prison, but qualified immunity still exists. I don't think it's ever applied to criminal charges.

We should do all of those things, but a slogan about qualified immunity has nothing to do with any of them. "Incidents like this won't stop until qualified immunity is done away with" is nonsense.

Though also, what the heck are you talking about insurance matter? It's in the summary, they didn't just find their car missing, they said a half a dozen dudes forcibly stole their car. You really want just insurance to handle that? I mean I agree SWAT teams probably shouldn't, but WTF.

This is a common line, but you understand qualified immunity is immunity from lawsuits right? And they are already being sued?

If there's a later story about this getting dismissed because of qualified immunity maybe, but that's frankly just a silly comment about this story as is.

And I in the other similar story linked, someone won almost $4 million . . . in a lawsuit . . .

So what would change if we ended qualified immunity exactly?

Could they sue apple? The way I understand it, if "Find My" data pointed them here for airpods, the way that fundamentally works, even if you don't know it, if you own an iPhone, your device is constantly pinging airpods and airtags that aren't even yours, to send along data to Apple so others can find their shit. Maybe, just maybe, roping a billion consumers' devices into your fancy surveillance network without them even knowing about it, wasn't a very good idea.

In this case, that helped get the Shamily Family (I had to) SWATted.

Though pretty silly headline. It wasn't over stolen Air Pods. It was over a stolen car, a car jacking. The AirPods were incidental.

Something every desktop/device/thing needs to do:

In 46, GNOME has removed the embedded browser from their Online Accounts setup. So if you want to sign into your Google account, it will open your default browser. No need to punch your password into a system that may not support your password manager, no need to fumble with backup 2FA because your Fido key or something isn't supported by the embedded browser, no need to login at all if you're already logged in via the browser.

It's one of those small changes that will make the old way feel like the Bad Ancient Past.

Seriously:

Why do people make posts like this? They're already piling up. They are no more edgy than last year, or five years ago, or ten years ago. How did GNOME get so in your head? GNOME's design has changed approximately once per decade for twenty five years, the idea that they're the "change for the sake of change" guys is just silly. That's a slogan at best. GNOME seems to engender this need to be contrarian, but it's not like they're Windows, they've got maybe 1% of PC desktops at best.

I mean, if there's news about the Super Bowl, do you jump in about how in your opinion, baseball is better? I'd bet anything you mock the people who do as childish.

There's one group of users, I'm not sure how big they are, who sit in the middle of this Venn Diagram.

They don't especially like Big Tech, not liking Big Tech is cool, and PC's are plentiful, old computers are everywhere. So their burden to trying Linux is easier than ever, they don't have to dual boot or mess with losing data they care about. (Phone's being primary devices helps too.) Then they find they like it, *and* they're validated because they already thought disliking Big Tech is cool.

I don't think this is the biggest chunk of users, but if Desktop Linux suddenly does take off in North America, I think this group will be a big part of it.

This. Firefox the browser, remains very, very good. Quantum was years ago, and it has been excellent since, it just isn't well known, and too many users see no reason to switch.

I know a *lot* of people who are just sort of impotently frustrated with the state of their privacy on the web. If Mozilla wants to scream privacy first and get users to switch, I will at least be cautiously optimistic.

If the "why should I switch?" conversation becomes "because it's tightly integrated with Monitor" and similar services that you can trust and are worth paying for gets people to pay, great. We (people who care about a healthy web and free software) still need Firefox to be healthy.

I don't think that just stating the fact that from tons of data, shoplifting goes up with self-checkout is the same as placing the blame on it.

If we *know* that it goes up, why should we ramp up penalties/police to protect the revenue of businesses who are making this decision? If anything, I'd say it's a strong argument to reduce them. It's sort of like, the regulations around taking PIN codes for credit cards, if the point of sale doesn't accept chip and pin, then the liability shifts to the point of sale for fraud. We don't just increase policing and let them roll on with mag stripes forever, similarly companies that keep reducing their staff and using their own self-checkout, can at least pay a tax to cover this extra policing or something.

I may be misunderstanding, I'm not an expert here, and this is the articles headline too, but:

It seems to me that "30x better at absorbing impact" != "30x better at preventing concussions".

The helmet won't make you suddenly stop more slowly. A lot of concussions happen because you rapidly stop, and your brain pretty literally is stuck rattling around in your skull. The helmet absorbing more won't automatically be proportionally better at stopping concussions overall.

The researchers seem to pretty carefully not say this 30x better, just the article jumps to it. Seems like a classic example of bad science reporting to me.

They aren't claiming it's hard data. Everything starts as anecdotes. There's no #metoo without anecdotes.

I have worked in tech for about fifteen years too, and my list isn't much better.

The experience that really sticks with me is more like the "story time 1" above.

When I was in vocational tech school in college, the one girl in the class dropped. She was there with her boyfriend, the moment he quit, she did too.

When someone asked our instructor why there were no women here but as said above nursing and other classes were all women, he said simply "because they have better places to be."

Having been in tech for almost two decades now . . . he was right. If measured only by the number of dudes I know who had strokes and heart attacks before 40, he was right.

The combined company will rerlease a new streaming app, and call it Cable+.

HBO will be $15 a month extra and all will be right with David Zaslav's world again.

It's not really clear what you're point is?

Are you literally suggesting that, to make money, they are making up the hours that their customers are watching, and catering to those pretend made up customers, rather than to the ones actually paying them?

Because greed and profit? How exactly does that make them profit?

The reasons are even in the summary. If the other party has your phone number, they can more easily screw up and text you something sensitive rather than using Signal.

Consider that you are someone interesting enough to have a really skilled adversary with some resources. You're a journalist some powerful person or company doesn't like.

If someone compromises the person on the other end of your chats, they now have your phone number. They can now use your phone number for all sorts of phishing attacks, and have a much wider set of paths to attack *your* device. If they just have your Signal username, it's much less useful to them.

It's also often wanted for a much less technical sort of privacy. Women in particular give out fake numbers all the time, and many prefer to share Instagram and the like instead of a phone number. You can just block someone on Instagram, if they have your phone number, that at least feels much more permanent.

$8 Trillion? Citation needed, I think you're thinking of TARP, which was about $800 billion. A lot of money, but nowhere near $8 trillion.

And two, I don't think you understand what TARP was. It was in no way like just forgiving $800 billion in debt. They basically *gave* loans, and many places estimate that when the recovery bounced back, the government effectively turned a profit.

https://projects.propublica.or...

The comparison is just silly.