Having talent in the industry that knows how to write secure software isn't enough. The managers need to prioritize the work and allocate sufficient time for it. There is *always* deadline pressure, with real money and consequences behind it, and so engineers need to present a compelling case that their more expensive secure way to do it is actually necessary.

Businesses love to ignore security holes if something else in the code prevents them from being exploitable. They often don't accept "well future code changes may expose this vulnerability." And they won't accept "this more expensive way of doing it is the industry best practice" if they think the cheaper way of doing it is secure enough.

Getting the bean-counters on board is the real victory. Once they actually care about security, they will be interested in hiring people who can do it well, which in turn will motivate technicians to study up on it.

I don't think so. I poked around and couldn't find any support for what you were saying. What I found was that our feelings come from the limbic system, and the perception of color is produced through a multi-step process involving several different parts of the brain.

I didn't find anything about it functioning like an antenna.

So, if you have serious scientific research to present on this topic, please present some links.

When you say "they," are you referring to your religious leaders?

In the USA, your diary can become evidence in court if the court deems it is relevant. There is no automatic shield for that.

I am not a lawyer though, so if someone has a credible source that says otherwise, please feel free to speak up.

Saying that conversations with a chatbot should receive the same legal protections as conversations with a lawyer is beyond ridiculous. None of the important reasons why conversations with a lawyer get such protections apply.

Yes, it's true that some people really open up to chat bots. That still doesn't justify such protections. People just should know better than to have dangerous conversations with computer programs hosted on some one else's machine! People who really need people to talk to should still abstain from confessing their crimes to chatbots.

Everything else we do must be done cautiously. Alcohol use doesn't come with special legal protections; it's on us to drink responsibly. Gun use doesn't come with special legal protections it's on us to manage them responsibly. Conversations with our employers, family members, friends, lovers, etc., don't come with special legal protections; it's on us to keep our mouths shut about certain topics. Why in the world would chatbot use be any different? Seriously, this is nonsense.

People with money can buy a beefy machine and host a chatbot model on it locally. Everyone else can just develop some AI street smarts. Or go to jail after they confess crimes to a chatbot.

Straight from the article:

The researchers also highlighted that the association was independent of underlying factors such as body mass index, hypertension, diabetes and lipid levels, which might predispose people to low-calorie products.

The article says exactly what you just said:

It is important to note that this was an observational study, meaning it can only show an association between higher xylitol levels and cardiovascular events, rather than proving that xylitol directly caused them, and further research is needed.

It IS an important thing to remember, as "post hoc ergo propter hoc" is one of the most popular logical fallacies. But on the other hand, it is equally important to pay attention to serious studies like this, because each one serves as a rigorously-obtained data point in a greater narrative that IS used to draw scientific conclusions (and to justify further research).

Fresh fruit is not problematic for healthy people. The levels of sugar are much lower than what is present in candy, and it comes properly mixed with natural fiber which ensures your body can metabolize it in a healthy way (unlike with candy).

Dried fruit is slightly more problematic because you wind eating too much of it (since it takes up less space in your stomach).

Fruit juice is just as problematic as pure soda, since all the fiber is gone and the sugar concentration is much higher.

But fresh fruit is very beneficial to health (so long as you don't overdo it, as with anything, and be sure to wash it first too since food poisoning is a risk with anything eaten raw).

You make it sound like you can get only one or the other (either a high CADR or a true HEPA filter).

For home use, consumer devices can give both. You can have a high CADR together with a true HEPA filter, matched to your room size.

But I don't have a dog in this fight. If you want go with a not-as-good filter and make up for it in volume, knock yourself out.

Anything that uses true HEPA quality air filters.

The phenomenon of "rich getting richer" is characteristic of all free markets during times of economic health. It's an easy thing to demonize but simple practical realities make this inescapable.

At its essence, acquiring wealth requires making investments (which could include building businesses just as much as buying ones that already exist). Making such investments requires capital. People who don't have any can maybe get a business loan, but that puts a harsh upper limit on how much they can earn from the investment. Wealthy people have a lot more that they can invest, and so they stand to make a lot more from their investments.

Wealth is THE ladder to attaining wealth. Ordinary jobs are just a means of keeping bread on the table while building initial capital to get in on the investing. Some specialist jobs can pay pretty well but not well enough to make the kind of money that we associate with the super rich.

The thing is, if we take away the option to "get richer," then people who have capital won't invest it, which means they won't be creating jobs or delivering value, which leads to the downward spiral of unemployment, deflation, and economic collapse (Exactly like what we saw throughout the 1930s). So if we treat "the rich getting richer" as some sort of problem that needs to be solved, we risk breaking the backbone of the economy, and pushing nearly everyone into poverty.

We could possibly remove some of the legal loopholes that allow the super-rich to skip out on taxes, but that is supremely hard to do since the super rich hold tremendous political power, and can independently lobby such attempts into oblivion. Even under democratic presidents, such efforts get no traction.

So for now, "the rich getting richer" isn't really a sign of economic mismanagement so much as "standard operating procedure" for a functioning free market.

If eliminating homicide was the only effect the cameras had, I would consider it. But the cameras also enable all kinds of harmful abuse, as has been reported many times right here on slashdot.

Most crime, including violent crime, is a consequence of poverty driving people to desperation. Maybe we could find other ways of bringing that down. Like better education for the poorest areas and other forms of assistance that get people working again and eliminate the desperation. It might not be easy, but it's surely better than making ourselves so extremely vulnerable to the kinds of abuses that mass surveillance enables.

You seem to have confused my post with someone else's. Specifically:

"but other systems are worse so you should be happy with what we have"

I never said nor implied "you should be happy with what we have."

criticizing the current system and calling for change is the equivalent of lobbying for some other system

I never said nor implied that calling for any change is lobbying for some other system.

You're making a number of assumptions

No I'm not, you are reading into my post a whole lot of things that I didn't say and don't agree with.

First you are assuming that the system you have is the system you think it is.

What does this even mean? Are you trying to say that America isn't actually a Capitalism? Without some elaboration, your statement doesn't make any sense.

Second you are assuming that it cannot be made better or changed any way,

No I am not! I absolutely think that we can and should perpetually monitor and modify it as needs arise.

Third, you are assuming that the system you have today is the same system you had 10, 20, 100, or 200 years ago.

No I am not. Where in the world are you even getting this? A huge number of economic changes have happened over the past 200 years. I know this as well as anyone.

For an increasing percentage of Americans, life is getting worse and worse financially...

Your final paragraph is a total topic change seemingly stated as an argument. Or something. All I did was answer a specific question from rsilvergun. It wasn't my intention to write an essay on how we solve the issues related to wealth inequality in America.

"Socialism" is a broad word that refers to an entire family of different systems. It's not "one thing," and there isn't a single definition for it. There is just a loose group of common elements shared by all the different things that share the label, the main one being collective control over the means of production. (see here for more info).

So it isn't reasonable to say that this is "the best system" without specifying which version you are referring to and citing specific places that have fully implemented it for a long time and show signs of sustainable thriving.

Incidentally, Capitalism is, at its essence, "private ownership of the means of production" (which is to say, people can own businesses). If you allow this, then what you have is Capitalism (possibly with other regulations on the side). If you don't allow this, then what you have is not capitalism. Maybe you were thinking of allowing private ownership of some businesses but not others? Or something else?

If capitalism can't even solve something this fucking simple what is even the point?

"The point" is that it's the best system we have, despite its problems.

The alternatives have, historically, led to mass starvation and bloody revolutions in relatively short order. This will predictably happen again if they are attempted, because they violate human nature too strongly.

Be that as it may, technological advancement has always been the game-changer. If anything stands any kind of chance at enabling humans to thrive, sustainably, under a communist system, it will be labor automation (including and especially AI).