And the solution is that, should it be proven that she did actually start the fire, to be banned for life from holding any social media accounts. No tiktok, no youtube, no facebook page, no opportunity to garner likes or views ever again.

Same thing should happen to that guy who crashed his plane so he could livestream his "emergency bailout" - his live-streaming channels should be all be deleted and he should be banned from opening new ones.

Why would you no longer be able to access data on a drive just because the company that built the filesystem stopped maintaining it?

There's a simpler solution to all of this, which will save everyone from all of the effort of having to deal with each new proposal from the Chrome team to figure out in what way the latest proposal is bad:

Separate Chrome from Google.

It should have been obvious from the moment Chrome was announced, that the only reason Google would have to build its own browser is to be able to track absolutely every activity you perform on the web. And as long as Chrome is a Google product, it will always have to try and find alternatives to feed that data back to Google's servers. And so every proposal, like FLoC or Topics or whatever, coming from Chrome, will automatically be met with suspicion.

Browsers should not be bending over backwards to accommodate the needs of advertising platforms. It's pretty laughable that every alternative solution that Chrome proposes starts with the nonsensical suggestion that tracking is an inherent requirement for the internet to operate and so there is a need to find a solution that allows that tracking to continue. It is not. And so the Chrome team end up looking like fools, having to grasp at straws to justify their insistence for trying to force tracking behaviour into the browser.

And it's all because Chrome is a Google product, and therefore has to serve Google's interests in slurping up all of that tracking data. Separate Chrome from Google, and allow the Chrome team to build a better *browser*, not a better *Google browser*.

Not exactly.

He wasn't making the food himself, but he was providing an ingredient that others used in their own recipes. He also distributes the recipe along with each batch of his ready-made ingredient, but the de-facto method of using this ingredient is to just use the ready-made one, rather than making it yourself from his recipe.

Many people just use the latest batch of his ingredient in their recipe, without checking the recipe for that batch to see if he decided to slip in something nefarious.

The analogy here would be that while he didn't mind the small home industries using his ingredient for free, he didn't like that some big corporate bakeries were using it without supporting his recipe development.

He could have just decided to stop improving his ingredient any more, and everyone would just have to make do with the latest batch.
Or he could have withdrawn all of his batches of ingredient, and forced everyone to find someone else to make the ingredient for them.
He chose to poison the new batch.

Ironically, the majority of big corporate bakeries using his ingredient have already settled on a particular batch, and although they might try out the new batch internally, they won't use it cakes that they sell to customers until its been thoroughly tested in-house, and since they noticed that their taste-testers keep dying when using this batch of the ingredient, they just know not to use it in anything they sell to the public.

But the small home industries that he actually wanted to benefit from his ingredient often don't have the experience to vet each batch and taste the dough themselves since THEIR recipe hadn't changed, so they just use the newest batch for each cake they make, and end up poisoning their customers instead.

I'm not suggesting anything about the building. I'm suggesting that Amazon knew that a tornado was approaching the area while their workers didn't, because Amazon does not allow cellphones in the warehouse. A policy which Amazon is now reviewing, because if the warehouse workers were allowed to keep their phones with them, they'd have received the tornado warning a lot earlier than when warehouse management alerted them to it, and could have taken better shelter.

If workers miss their quotas, they get fired. So while you are correct that it's not Amazon policy to force workers to piss in bottles or in their trucks, it is Amazon policy to fire workers who don't meet their quotas. The point I'm making is that Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the world, could afford to reduce his wealth by a tiny fraction, in exchange for reducing the pressure on his workers that forces them to piss in bottles or get fired.

And the point about his ex-wife is that, even after losing 25% of his wealth to her, he is still the richest man in the world, and can absolutely afford for his workers to not piss in bottles. Yet they still do.

i.e. Amazon's owners doesn't care about their workers, they only care about getting rich. They could still be insanely rich while treating their workers more humanely, but since that will eat a little into their billions of profit, it's more cost-effective for them to settle some wrongful death cases whenever they happen than to actually change the working conditions in their warehouses for everyone.

I think the article was written because Amazon has a history of exploiting warehouse workers (remember that they have to pee in bottles to avoid being fired for taking bathroom breaks), despite Amazon's owner being literally the richest man on the planet, even after losing a huge chunk of his wealth to his ex-wife.

Amazon has the resources and ability to provide safe and humane working conditions to its employees, but chooses not to, so that Jeff can take a joyride into space. He literally thanked Amazon workers for making him rich enough to be able to do it.

Amazon could be doing a whole lot of things that they aren't doing now. This has nothing to do with the fact that a tornado took out a warehouse, but the fact that workers in that warehouse died when those deaths could likely have been prevented.

Pretty much any app that does VOIP shows up in the recent calls list on iOS. Whatsapp, Teams, other VOIP apps. This isn't any conspiracy about MS forcing its way into iOS internals, it's an entirely standard way of doing things.

As to the why, iOS presents a standard experience when you receive an incoming call, so you don't need to switch to the app before you can answer it. Half the time I don't even realise that I'm getting a call via Whatsapp instead of my actual direct line. So if I missed a call, I don't want to have to go into each possible VOIP app to see if the call originated from there, they're all presented in a single list. If I want to return a call, I can do it directly from the recent calls list which then invokes the relevant app automatically.

The issue here is not at all that Teams or any other app is able to integrate into the dialler. The issue is that Android allowed Teams to intercept a call to 911. The fact that Android is releasing an update to address this pretty much proves that it's something that needs to be addressed at the OS level and isn't the fault of any particular app.

If that was the case, then why is Google releasing an Android update to address this? And why would it only affect users on Android 10 or later?
What's more likely is that there is an issue in Android 10 and above, and Teams just happens to be the first app to have triggered it.

In any event, if Teams is able to watch keystrokes from another app, that says more about Android's security than anything. And even if Teams *is* passing something through incorrectly, it also says a lot about Android's internals, as invalid input from an app should be rejected.

That doesn't make sense. Netflix can just say that starting from version xyz, a TPM is required, and then refuse to install or run on a system which doesn't have the required hardware. There's no need to coordinate with MS on this at all.

I expect the reason for the centralized start button and start menu is because of that new slide-over widget panel that comes in on the left, which would fight with a left-aligned start menu.

I expect that's also why they've now removed the ability to dock the taskbar to the other sides of the screen other than the bottom, which is something I'm not happy about at all, as I dock the taskbar to the right on all of my systems.

I'd rather prefer to keep my taskbar docked to the right, with the start menu popping out of the right hand side, which won't conflict with the widget overlay on the left. And for those who want to dock their taskbar to the left, they should then move the widget overlay to slide over from the right instead.

I thought the same thing. Blockchain works for something like Bitcoin where there's no centralized server that holds all the accounts. But in this case, Disney is sending out a movie to 10,000 theatres. The theatre hardware can connect directly to Disney's server to say I want to play this movie in this theatre at this time, and the server can return a decryption key, or record the event in a single database.

What's the value in recording all that information in a blockchain? Why do all theatres need to record all their show history in a public ledger? Even if Disney wants to make this the industry standard, all they have to do is share the validation server software with the other distributors and let each of them manage their own instances.

I know that box office revenue is pretty public knowledge but I'm sure that there might be some sort of sensitive info related to scheduling that studios might not want to be publicly visible.

It's more likely that he shorted Tesla because Elon himself has repeatedly said that TSLA is overvalued. Elon's hyped BTC and then days later says something like 'yeah but BTC is pretty overvalued lol'. It seems quite prudent that any savvy investor would short anything that Elon hypes.

MS has gone all-in on Android because they can integrate in ways that Apple does not allow. If Apple allowed the same level of customization that Android does, they'd integrate just as deeply with iPhones.

You're forgetting the many documented cases of Apple threatening to remove (or refusing to approve) apps because the developers actually went through the effort of ensuring that all signups, payments, etc happened entirely outside of the app.

That shouldn't be the case. Chrome first ends the url you're trying to visit to its safe browsing API to determine if the site's been reported as unsafe. This request will be proxied via Apple so that Google can't associate all the urls you're trying to visit against your IP. Apple's concern is that every url visited by every Chrome browser can be logged against the user's source IP via the safe browsing api.

If the site is deemed safe by the API or if you decide to proceed anyways if the site was reported as unsafe, then you will then make a regular connection to the site from your own IP. So by the time you actually connect to the site, it's using your own IP address so captchas shouldn't be affected by this at all.

Going against the common trend here to suggest recommending Office 365 in future. As a paying customer, you get a real person calling you back within hours whenever you log a support call. And with an action pack subscription you get 5 E3 licenses as well as $100 azure credits per month.