>"The design appears safer than simply handing passwords to an AI model, but it does not remove every risk"

Um, it sounds like you would be giving your credentials to "1Password" and THEY CAN apparently decrypt them to inject them. So do you trust "1Password"? I wouldn't.

Wasnt there a SCOTUS ruling recently that ruled that agencies cannot enact their own rules, but can only enforce rules as laid out in law? And if Congress wanted the agency to enforce a rule, it should pass a law to that effect?

We all know that that was targeted at agencies like the EPA, FDA etc, to get rid of the agency-created limits on things, but it feels like it should equally apply here - the law says X, the agency cant change the law.

>"Unifi has had several CVSS 10.0 vulnerabilities lately. Quite a lot of those devices are unfortunately still ending up part of botnets. "

All platforms have vulnerabilities, unfortunately. But from what I can tell, all of those are from the inside. Not from the outside. Every one of them is "with access to the network." So these are not things that are going to give outside attackers the direct ability to break into a Unifi controller on the outside of its firewall.

I am glad I finally retired my older Asus router last year, even though it was running a reflash, and installed a Unifi gateway at home. They seem to be very good with updates. I even turned on the Threat Detection and Blocking (Intrusion Prevention). Then also GeoBlocking (yes, I know they can work around that, but why make it easy?) The nice thing is this little box does everything I had before and TONS more, including running cameras, with no cloud-dependencies and no recurring fees.

Alas, my contribution to security will be fairly meaningless when there are countless other non-secured routers out there.

I suspect GP's point is that every malware blocker in every browser is likely to treat this kind of script as hostile, except for Chrome because Google are currently nerfing the ability for blockers to intercept hostile scripts in one of the most blatantly user-hostile changes they've ever made.

If Apple play along with Safari then every other browser and its malware blocking plugins are about to be toast in a huge retrograde step for Internet privacy. But not even Cloudflare is going to get away with blocking every iOS device if Apple continues to allow blockers to intercept this kind of script.

Did anyone mention recently that simultaneously controlling both the most popular web browser and several of the most popular ad-supported web properties might be a little anticompetitive, and that it's about time that Google was broken up? It's probably time for that drum to start beating a bit louder again.

Plus this only blocks Youtubes adverts - these days you often have to wade through the content creators own ads, at least one for the “sponsor of this video”, and then at least one for the content creators own Patreon or equivalent merch site

Just timed a 9 minute video I was watching while browsing this story - 3 minutes of content creators ads, 6 minutes of content.

And theres no way around the content creators ads even if you do become a Patreon.

>"A simple data-entry error, magnified and broadcast nationwide by a growing surveillance network operated through an opaque partnership between a private company and public agencies"

With a large-enough data set (and so many humans involved as well) even the very improbable becomes probable. When you are invading the privacy of drivers many millions of times a day, just the slightest error rate can mean lots of people affected by false positives. And the more they add additional sensors, additional cameras, additional databases and interfaces into other systems, the more dystopian this will become...

Did you report it to your bank? It is almost certainly just a coding stupidity on their part, perhaps looking for a specific user agent.

Try: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... and set it to lie to that domain about what you are using. I would absolutely leave my bank (or any service) for another one if I couldn't use Firefox... and they would know why as well, because I would have already reported it to them way before I left, and then would let them know why I left if it wasn't fixed.

In fact, I go to hundreds of web sites using Firefox exclusively, on many systems, all Linux, and very, very, very rarely have any problems. And 90% of the time, it is because some stupid ass-hat is looking at the user agent and throwing up an irrelevant error message.

There are really only two multiplatform "browsers" left. It is inexcusable that any site can't "support" two.

>"The extension quickly went viral as a much-needed filter for people who still use Amazon"

Who "still use Amazon"? As opposed to what? Walmart?? Is buying from Amazon not a thing anymore and I somehow missed it?

"You will own nothing and be happy"

Or you can install Linux and potentially be a hell of a lot happier/safer/free.

Great for them. No great for home and regular business consumers who can no longer afford memory or storage anymore :(

>"The wear using infrequent 63% to 83% was drastically more than tons more cycles from 23% to 83%"

If it wasn't apparent, I had a major wording error, above. The correct wording is:

"The wear using infrequent 23% to 83% was drastically more than tons more cycles from 63% to 83%"

>"Can you provide an example of this in the car industry for batteries? I can only find sensible advice on improving longevity. In fact to go through the GP's example using a Polestar 2:"

Unfortunately, I can't locate the Nissan Ariya example. But I have seen it. I didn't save the document or link. Perhaps this is only limited to Nissan, though.

As for your list- For trip routing, it does use the 80% rule for DC charging stop planning. But there are no warnings about charging more than 80%. And that is mostly about time, because the last 20% takes so much longer. AC charging is not factored in there. And there is no way to limit charging from the vehicle with AC charging. And no advice or warnings, either in the vehicle display nor the manual.

>"Nitpick: No cars on the market rapid charge above 80%. That's also why they quote 20-80% figures for the speed of fast charging."

The Ariya will charge to 100% on a fast DC charger, unless it is the charger that stops the charging. Of course, you can terminate the charge manually at any time from the charger or the vehicle.

>"I wonder how much this is engineering and marketing function."

100% marketing so they can pretend it doesn't matter how it is charged.

>"A percent indicator is something that an engineer decides to show you. It could very well be that they prioritised battery life over total distance and as a result 100% may be the 90% of the competition"

The actual battery size is 91kWh with 87kWh (for the larger version). The % indicator at 100% is 100% of the 91kWh. The reserve is hidden on the low end (based on experiments).

>"But since you're complaining about it it may not be a decision which resonated with users and end result maybe it was a marketing push to add the adjustment back in user's hands"

Users aren't complaining about the reserve. We are complaining about the inability to tell the car to charge only to 70% or 75% or 80% or whatever. When an EVSE is connected, it will always charge to 100%. There is no user option in the Ariya to set a charge percent on which to stop. There is an option to set a schedule based on time, but that is meant for rate metering, as is time-only, not percent. It was clearly a marketing decision. There is even some marketing material implying (but not directly saying) that you can charge to 100% "safely" without "worry." And that doesn't fit the science fact about NMC. I am not sure any other EV does that. Nissan apparently relented and put a charge limiter in the new Leaf, but hasn't updated the Ariya to allow it. And both vehicles use the same battery type and charging techniques.

>"I wonder if anyone has done a teardown to see if 100% was actually 100% or not."

Based on experiments with full charge, full depletion, and then externally measuring charge again in kWh, people have determined that 100% is 100% (or very close).

>"Home come cell telephone batteries never exceed expectations? They usually operate in conditions that are ideal compared to car batteries. Four years with this phone and the battery is at 75% max capacity."

How often are you charging it to only 80%? How often to you charge before hitting 40%? 20%?

My Samsung A52 5G phone is 5 years old now and seems fine. But I also set the charge limiter (80%) on it from day one. And it rarely sees discharge below 50% before it is charged again. I don't use it a lot during the day, though. Also do the same with my Galaxy Tab S9. Also do the same with my Lenovo X13 Gen3A running Linux (via "tlp" https://linrunner.de/tlp/usage... )