While it is an enormous problem, possibly the most significant, we know how to shield against radiation, but it's going to take mass in the form of hydrogen-rich molecules like water or polyethylene (as examples). To solve that problem we are either going to have to make launches a lot cheaper, or figure out how to do it all in orbit.

It's at the edge of our technological capacity to produce such a spacecraft now, so the barrier is economic. That's a massive barrier, but in theory we definitely could, if we put a significant percentage of GDP of the wealthiest nations towards the project, produce a spacecraft that keep astronauts alive and relatively protected from ionizing radiation both on the journey and while on Mars.

As to your general assholery, I guess everyone has to have an outlet, though why Slashdot is a bit mysterious.

Mostly just in the bulk, low barriers to entry, and pervasiveness(like a lot of things social media). The case of actors actually goes back a long way; state laws regarding compensation of child actors were spurred by the case of one who was popular in the 1920s and litigated with his parents over where the money wasn't in 1939. That case doesn't provide for takedowns; but it's also the case that filmmakers are normally looking for children to play characters; rather than to do 'candid' intense documentaries of them at home; so the degree of public exposure of private life is presumably deemed to be less; with the main issue being children who were...definitely...getting a solid education while on stage finding that all the money was gone when it became their problem.

Child-blogging, by contrast, seems to reward verisimilitude (if not necessarily truth) and invasiveness, relatively pervasive in-home mining for 'content', so presumably seems better served by removal-focused options; though there has definitely been talk about covering the economic angle in line with child actors.

I don't even know what the deal is with child beauty pageants, or how something you'd assume is a salacious bit of slander about what pedophile cabals are totally doing, somewhere, is actually a thing a slice of parents are into, way, way, into. Apparently that's a third rail to someone, though, as the only jurisdiction I'm aware of with significant restrictions on them is France.

Unless quantum computing becomes cheap and comparatively widely available quite quickly after becoming viable passwords seem like they'll be a manageable problem. Nobody likes rotating them; but it's merely tedious to do and the passwords themselves are of zero interest unless they are still being accepted. If it does go from 'not possible' to 'so cheap we can just go through through in bulk' overnight that could ruin some people's days; but if there's any interval of 'nope, the fancy physics machine in the dilution refrigerator is currently booked by someone with a nation state intelligence budget' you can just rotate older credentials.

Now, if you were hoping that encryption was going to save any secrets that are interesting in and of themselves that got out in encrypted form; then you have a problem. Those can't be readily changed and will just be waiting.

Extremely unsafe reputationally, and extremely dubious in terms of profits.

Especially for an administration who's priority is to eliminate pornography as an evil to society and why the US isn't having more babies and getting divorced way too often.

It's in the book. Everything Trump has done has followed Project 2025 (and now Project 2026) book. Getting rid of pornographic materials is pretty much the first chapter.

that yummy koolaid

Plus the whole 'fucking dystopian' angle. On the one hand we've got people bitching about 'civilizational decline'; but we want 'robot philosophers' teaching children? I'm not against the occasional scantronned multiple choice test; but outsourcing philosophy to save on those oh-so-expensive adjuncts seems like the sort of thing you only do to children being groomed for mindless servitude or because you've entirely given up on humanity as anything but an ingredient in pump and dump schemes.

Well at least someone can get their 11th version of something running correctly.

Well, we technically skilled Windows 9 (the version after Windows 8 was Windows 10), so...

Then again, if you want to toss in the fact that the Windows NT line started at 3.5, or add in the various versions of Windows from MS-DOS and NT....

Republicans Before MAGA: Tyranny and government overreach are bad! Now hand me my guns
MAGA Republicans Now: If it's alright for China, it's alright for us - as long as our cult leader is the one in power. And no one needs guns, you shouldn't be carrying them

FTFY.

MacOS was insanely brittle to write software for too, even by MS-DOS standards. The popular MS-DOS compilers had enough checks built-in to debug builds that if you had a pointer problem your program would just crash into the debugger, it was remarkable. 16-bit windows was pretty resilient too - if you had an out of bounds error and you had used GlobalAlloc your program would again just crash (allocations were rounded up to the next 16 bytes, so you might have a silent bug ... but the OS would not crash). On MacOS before Yellow Box your whole-ass computer would crash when you had a pointer problem.

Now, 16-bit Windows was nowhere near as bulletproof as 32-bit Windows, that is for sure. Resource leaks were not cleaned up for you and there wasn't a whole lot of sanity checking on structures passed to the OS. But it was far more bulletproof than MacOS that is for sure.

Win16 was resilient only because of the 386 which had a built in MMU. Classic MacOS ran without an MMU and didn't assume you had one. There were some features that required an MMU but the OS was written to not expect one. Heck, MacOS didn't really have the usermode-kernel mode functinality because that was broken in the 68000 (fixed in the 68010 - several instructions were not marked privileged when they should be)

Win16 in 386 enhanced mode had a whole pile of protections inherent in the 386 CPU which meant you could get some protections out there, though the dreaded "General Protection Fault" wasn't that far away.

Classic MacOS had none of that - no MMU, no userspace-kernel space separation (it ran in supervisor mode only). So a wild pointer can easily corrupt things.

It's why Apple had so many "next OS" projects from MkLinux (Mach kernel core with Linux around it - because at the time Linux didn't have a PowerPC port), Copland and others. It took them inheriting NextStep for them to actually move to something more robust, which was a Mach kernel with BSD.

The only reason MS-DOS was reliable was the damned segmentation of the 8086 meant your segment pointers had to be good and MS-DOS could be somewhat protected because of it. Anyone dealing with the memory map had a lot of fun with that. But it also meant a wild ass DS pointer would be more likely to corrupt your data segment than it would something MS-DOS needed. 68000 was a flat address space so a wild pointer could easily access anything. (Even worse were bad programming habits - the index registers were 32 bit, but only the lower 24 bits made it onto the address bus as the 68000 only had 24 address lines. Thus, people would use the upper 8 bits to store data with, including the Mac ROMs. That's what the "32-bit clean" meant in the MacOS days - none of the code you used would actually use the upper 8 bits of the index registers to store data so they could refer to a proper 32 bit address).

The amazing thing would be that Classic MacOS actually managed to run like that in 1999 and beyond (it took until OS X 10.2 or 10.3 when Apple stopped supporting dual booting back into Classic)

In other words, it's just another fancy ARM SoC with a silly name. Like the trillions of other ARM SoCs out there.

The big question I suppose is why they went with ARM and not say, RISC-V to make their SoC.

Kubermetes is like Docker. They're container systems. Basically they use Linux namespaces to let you run an independent userspace to your current userspace. This can have valuable benefits - like needing to run an ancient userspace for some tool on modern hardware (e.g., if you need an Ubuntu 14.04 LTS environment for some reason, it's basically impossible to run it on modern hardware without building your own kernel and stuff).

All Linux is doing is standard app level virtualization - you know the same protections that keep your web browser from interfering with your word processor.

Containers have their uses, and are far more lightweight than VMs since it's just a few additional Linux processes in the end (they all run on the host kernel natively). They are still vulnerable to the same inter-process attacks because to Linux, they're just another process running on the same machine. Kubernetes and Docker just are applications that help manage the Linux namespaces and virtual file systems

Yeah but still fuck all the companies that make these things.
I've never had one and don't drink and drive but they're the same as the scammy prison phone companies and stuff.
"You deserve it" isn't some excuse to enrich a "private public partnership"

Well, you don't HAVE to get an interlock installed. The judge can easily just say you're not allowed to drive at all as the alternative.

It's an option to being forced to use Uber/Lyft or public transit.

I mean, sometimes the alternative is preferable - maybe you own a rare car and don't want some mechanic shove an interlock into it in the crudest way possible.

Judge has a lot of discretion. They could toss you in jail. They could revoke your driving privileges. They could let you drive but with an interlock. You often get to choose. They can't force an interlock on you (e.g., you don't want someone to modify your pride and joy), but you'll be stuck with the other options.

Quite a bit different from prison phones - you have no choice when using a prison phone. But you do have a choice if you want an interlock installed or to choose other options.

Iâ(TM)m going to assume you have zero personal faults and do not require any form of medication strictly because of shitty life choices to be able to stand on such a pedestal. Otherwise, remind me why I should have sympathy for sugar junkies suffering from preventable diabetes when the insulin factory gets hacked. Call a fucking nutritionist.

Except in general, you don't get interlock systems forced on you for your first mistake. Interlocks are generally the last resort.

The first DUI is usually a fine, maybe some light jail time (a couple of weeks) if it's bad. The second time is a much larger fine and more jail time

The third time is usually when you either get your driving privileges taken away or you get required to install an interlock (at your expense - it's not cheap to install, and the monthly fees and activities you have to do to maintain it certainly aren't easy).

Most drivers stop at 1. Which can be a simple mistake and most people learn from it and never do it again. Get caught a second time and it's usually a wake up call to start cleaning up your life. The third time generally means it's time for forceful intervention.

So if you're forced to get an interlock on your car, basically you've failed multiple times at trying to fix your life and you got lucky the judge has sympathy for you. For they could easily just toss you in jail for a good long while as well.

You don't get the interlock for a mistake. Some jurisdictions require a pattern of DUIs before they'd force it on you so it's not even your 3rd time, it's far more times. It also means you are also giving permission to be pulled over randomly for a sobriety check - a cop passing has the right to purposefully stop you to do this.

If you have an interlock, it means you've failed to try to fix your alcoholism yourself and if the interlock makes your life difficult or inconvenient, well, you could be forced to catch the bus everywhere instead.

You think the cheap Chinese vehicles are doing excess amounts of stuff? They are cheap - the low cost BYD Seal can't even do any connected car stuff because it's so cheap, BYD didn't include a cellular modem or service with it. Instead the infotainment will do Android Auto or Apple CarPlay.

That's why US automakers are scared - they've been chasing profits by getting people to buy bigger and bigger SUVs for 30 years (that cost more money), while the Chinese have been refining their vehicles.

The early Chinese vehicles were a lot like the early Korean vehicles of the 80s (Hyundai Pony, anyone?). But just like how the Koreans have managed go from ultra cheap cars that barely work to decent cars, so have the Chinese. It's why BYD is one of the leading automakers of China - able to build all sorts of vehicles from cars to trucks and buses. (Electric buses are nifty, and in places like Australia, it's the HVAC that consumes most of the battery power, not driving around for 18 hours per day).

Also, avoid luxury brands. BMW and Mercedes have hundreds of computers and they're constantly throwing codes. The more practical ones have far fewer computers.

All I know is I can't wait until BYD comes to Canada. (Thanks Trump!)