This makes me so mad we should all go burn down a Walmart. Who's with me?

If AI can autonomously write the shipping code, why can't AI produce "new programming systems, languages, and verification methods to ensure AI-generated code remains robust and secure'?

In other words, if we work from the assumption that AI can do the primary coding tasks with hand-wavy magic, why does that leave open any sort of a niche for humans?

The right to a jury trial has not been incorporated against the states, so if you're in a state court, you have to rely on the right being established by the state constitution.

In spite of all the heat generated online, all the relevant legal questions are clear cut and resolve solidly in Twitter's favor -- Twitter is not a state actor; it has the First Amendment right to disassociate with users by removing their accounts; and users have no recourse to the courts if Twitter fails to apply their TOS consistently. (And none of those things change whether Section 230 is repealed or remains in force.)

Right, yes. By permitting ways to install alternate roots of trust, the overall security of the system is weakened. Those points are inextricably intertwined -- bypassing Apple as a gatekeeper also bypasses Apple as a security enforcer.

Even if it comes disabled by default, just the fact that a mechanism exists to enable it becomes a juicy target for hackers. They'll look for ways to either surreptitiously enable it without the user's knowledge, or they'll look for ways to social-engineer derpy users into enabling it.

The particulars are going to depend on which security mechanism they would bypass to permit sideloading. There's probably lots of different ways they could do it if forced to, but at minimum the sideloading mechanism would take away Apple's ability to revoke a compromised developer certificate. On top of that you'd have to consider the particulars of the sideloading mechanism -- does it provide unfettered access to the Secure Enclave? Does it allow the user to install new root certificates? Whatever it is, a bunch of hackers will immediately try to figure out how to leverage it in a chain of exploits.

The article specifically discusses sideloading. The Nintendo Switch doesn't allow sideloading. Any software running on the Switch has been licensed through Nintendo and Nintendo has taken their cut.

A sideload-capable device necessarily has a larger attack surface, whether or not a given individual utilizes the functionality.

I dunno, it'd be an interesting case to watch. I imagine they might argue that, given that the device was designed from the hardware on up to explicitly prevent sideloading, it therefore isn't a general purpose computing device. And was never intended to be, and was never represented to be.

I think he was describing a theoretical scenario where the bill was written specifically to affect only Apple, to the exclusion of other similarly-situated walled gardens like Nintendo, Playstation, Xbox, etc. I'm sure we can imagine a theoretical bill that runs afoul of the bill-of-attainder prohibition by laser-targeting Apple for punitive treatment.

The only Nintendo games available for purchase are ones that have been pre-approved by Nintendo.

If a law is intended to specifically target and punish a specific person (or company), it may be a "bill of attainder", which is prohibited by Article I, Section 9, Clause 3.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/co...

They're using Mastadon code.

Please note that this is for *online* payments. No standing at the concession counter waiting for the blockchain to settle your transaction.

I'm waiting for CRISPR Max, which is rumored to have a better camera.