Ignored... not so far, not quite. Stretched right to the limit, and maybe a bit beyond ("The plane was already in the air, we didn't know that verbal court orders had to be obeyed"), then emergency-appealed direct to SCOTUS, which quickly stays the injunction and then sits on the case for 6-9 months and then often rules that the issue is now moot... that has happened. A lot.

And "simply ignored" could very well still happen if Trump thinks it's important enough. He'll just issue an order (an official act, for which he has full immunity) and pre-emptively pardon the people who carry it out. So far the administration has decided not to cross that line, but if/when it happens, the only people who will be surprised are the ones who aren't paying attention.

Then there are the other cases where there is no injunction because the courts have ruled that only Congress has standing to sue (impoundment, emoluments, etc.), and the bootlicking GOP has declined. In those cases, the government can just violate the law with impunity until/unless Congress grows a spine.

Plus there are the cases where the government has committed outright crimes which only the DoJ is in a position to prosecute, and they're just declining. In the case of the Venezuelan boats the DoJ's inaction gives the International Criminal Court jurisdiction, and they could prosecute (including prosecuting Trump), but the Trump administration is already enacting sanctions against ICC judges and prosecutors and if push comes to shove there's the Hague Invasion Act which would authorize Trump to invade the Netherlands to retrieve US personnel held by the ICC. So, the ICC isn't going to do anything.

"Who's gonna stop 'em?" is a legitimate question.

That comparison is incredibly unfair to the Cybertruck.

Is destroying the country's economic competitiveness part of the 80% or part of the 20%?

My previous reply was unnecessarily snarky, but I have to point out the "Linux" uses no such thing. GNOME, perhaps? I'm currently running KDE and Ctrl+Alt+Shift+u doesn't do this. Maybe it would if I changed the right setting.

Basically any "here's how you do that" advice is going to be very platform-dependent -- I just use a pair of hyphens. An actual em dash looks nicer, but not that much nicer. Though "—" is pretty easy on /., at least.

Without getting into the question of good or bad, chatbot prose is quite distinct from most professional prose. There are lots of common patterns in AI prose that are fairly rare to nonexistent in human-written prose.

Definitely not. Once you've read enough of it, AI prose isn't just easy to distinguish, it's impossible to miss. It's a very definite and unique style.

I just tried it, doesn't work. Alt-numbers just jump to different browser tabs.

Word? Really?

I'm an EMACS user. Complex key combinations are fine.

Fascism doesn't necessarily try to burn down science; Hitler did eject (and murder) a lot of Jewish scientists for being Jewish, but his regime was generally quite pro-science otherwise. Other autocratic regimes were also quite pro-science, once established. The USSR poured a lot of money into science. Not as much as the US but that was mostly because the USSR didn't have as much money to pour.

The regimes that reject science are populists and autocrats who are just establishing their power. Populism is fundamentally about rejection of influential and powerful elites, and the intelligentsia is both elite, because by definition it's a tiny and hard-to-enter group, and influential, because it's full of smart people who can give good policy advice within their areas of expertise. Populists don't necessarily need to eject the scientists and other academics, but they need to be seen bringing them under control. Trump doesn't want to shut Harvard down, he wants Harvard to bend to his will and, more importantly, be seen bending to his will.

Of course, to the extent that a government succeeds in disempowering and controlling the intelligentsia, it also drives them away and deprives itself of the benefits of their work.

Autocratic regimes in the making, whether populist or not, also seek to disempower the intelligentsia because they need to destroy the previous centers of power to solidify their own power. This is why most of the Communist revolutions imprisoned or killed all of the university professors right off. Some went a lot further; the Khmer Rouge basically murdered anyone with any post-secondary education, including all of their schoolteachers which, uh, didn't bode well for the future.

In the modern day, populism and autocracy tend to coincide because democracy has basically won as the default way any regime holds legitimacy. Most of the autocratic regimes today are at least notionally democratic, even if the elections are somewhat rigged and even if the autocrat uses their control of the media to control public opinion in their favor. Anti-elitism is basically necessary to retain autocratic power in a democracy because it's impossible to do without lying a lot, and that means you have to suppress people who seek truth. That means academics and journalists must be discredited and disempowered.

So, it's definitely something that autocratic populists do, because it's essential to their ability to gain and retain power. The long-term effects countries who go this way are predictable.

Neither does Google, and for the same reason: It would be selling the goose that lays the golden egg.

That program was shut down in 2024, so it's no longer running. It's an interesting point, though. The reason LE was buying that data was because they couldn't easily get subpoenas or warrants for it, which makes it far worse.

The amount of money AT&T was making was trivial, a few tens of millions per year at the high end. For a company that has annual revenues exceeding $100B it's hard to see why they even bothered. My theory is that they were more interested in the goodwill it earned them with the DoJ. Anyway, I bring this up because at least for Google (who I worked for for 15 years, so I have a pretty good understanding of the internal views), such trivial potential revenue would be seen as absolutely not worth the PR risk. It's much better for Google (and other tech companies) to be seen fighting warrants and subpoenas.

Also, I'll mention that the strategy I described -- treat user data as a liability, encrypt it all, burn the keys as soon as the data isn't needed any more -- is exactly what Google does. I'm not saying that could never change, but it would require the business environment to change, and if anything the environment is getting more sensitive to user privacy, not less.

Then if Ring is smart they should make it easy for users to provide the data to the police, and ensure that Ring can't, making themselves useless as a subpoena target and encouraging police to go ask the homeowners directly.

Companies should, in general, avoid keeping any user data one second longer than they legitimately need it. Data should be viewed as a liability more than an asset, and every company that achieves significant scale with user data soon realizes this, though some take longer than others to learn the lesson.

The reason it's a liability is because it exposes the company to an endless stream of warrants and subpoenas, and contrary to popular belief, the government does not pay for that data. In some cases the government might pay a portion of the expenses the company incurs in responding, but it's always still a net loss, and most of the time the government just shows up with a court order and says "Hand it over or be held in contempt of court". What makes it even worse is if companies actually want to be good stewards of the data and not hand over more than they should, they'll often get overly-broad requests and then have to go to court to fight to narrow or quash the requests.

This all gets very expensive. It's just a cost of doing business... but it's a cost that can be avoided if you don't have and can't get the data.

Encrypt everything, and arrange to destroy the keys when you no longer need the data is the best way to do it, too. Scrubbing large databases quickly and effectively is hard. Deleting a set of AES keys is a lot easier. This also means that you can focus your internal access controls on controlling which systems and employees can get the keys.

I'd encourage Ring to find ways to close the window of access even more.

The quote was from the Bavarian government guy, so it seems unlikely that he's concerned about Waymo's competitive worries.

Also, German regulators are very cautious, so I expect Tesla's camera-only and less-mature robotaxi service will have a harder time getting approved.

Well, given that Waymo has been testing for nearly 20 years and been operating commercially for six years, currently operating nearly 4000 vehicles in 11 cities doing 500k rides per week... there's not a lot of risk.

Roads in Munich aren't terribly different from roads in US cities. Stoplights work a little differently. Munich does get a little snow, but rarely very much and it almost never lasts long. If Waymo's vehicles can't deal with it they may just suspend service... though I expect they'll probably handle it fine. They're supposed to go live in Detroit and Minneapolis this year, and if they can handle the weather there (where just shutting down for snow is not an option), Munich will be no problem at all.

So, not much like OceanGate.

It has happened under both.

The recording engineer only records (and maybe mixes) the audio that is generated, which is part of what I meant by "mechanical process", along with generating the audio. Dre could use AI to transform his ideas into digital audio tracks, obviating the recording engineer and the performers, and to then select and mold the results. This would still require talent and creativity, which was my point.