Looking at a hybrid. 44 Miles doesn't seem like a lot, but for mostly city driving it's adequate. Can even be charged on a standard plug.

IDK man, there is one type of person that complains about being unfairly targeted wit these bans. If you got banned, its probably obvious. I mean have you seen the shit they didn't ban people for?

Great. Amazon will soon be flooded with self-published books written partially by AI telling about the new changes.

Yeah pretty much thats true of the definition people currently use. However, come on, Elon obviously hates Africans more than any other race. I don't know how you could think otherwise and maintain any intellectual honesty. But if you're sucked into what ever name we've given Elon acolytes, then that would make more sense.

Yes, there are absolutely reasons to expect that. The main one is that it's Google. Google has a long history of promising great privacy measures and policies for some new product and later, after capturing many customers, going back on their word and revoking or changing the policies - and from what I've seen, always in the sense of less privacy.

Here are some examples:

- combining user data over multiple services. For years, search, GMail, YouTube and other products had separate privacy policies, which meant data collected by one service will be siloed to that service. However, after capturing a big enough market share Google announced they're switching to a single Google-wide privacy policy and combining all the user data from the different services. Google was widely criticized by privacy advocates and got investigated by EU regulators.
- using GMail contacts for GBuzz connections. This was an abuse of the user's data: the customers created contacts for a specific purpose, and Google took them and used them for something completely different and unexpected (and with no opt-in either). This led to such a backlash that Google had to backpedal. Fortunately GBuzz died quickly, but if it hadn't, I'm sure Google would have tried the same thing again later.
- location history: the expectation was that turning off Location Services would stop Google from collecting location data and sending it to advertisers and others. However investigators discovered it was not the case.
- when Google acquired DoubleClick they made assurances that advertising data will not be combined with personally identifiable information. This was reversed when Google changed policies to allow this data mingling.

In other words, Google can not be trusted to abide by their word. Even if they publish good privacy policies, and even if they respect them for some time, all of their policies have wordage reserving the right to modify the policies in the future. Historically, they often do change those policies, to the detriment of customers. Buying into Google's promises is a fool's game.

 

But the individual didn't destroy it. The agent did the physical act of destroying it.

Suppose you were at the border with your phone, and the agent confiscated it.
Then the agent had said, how do i get into this phone?
You said, "put it in a blender".
If the agent puts it in the blender, the agent destroyed it, not you.

Now clearly, one would expect the agent to know that putting it in a blender would destroy it.

And equally clearly the inference here is that the agent did not know that the password he was given would wipe the phone as part of opening it. But isn't the onus still on the officer?

If it had been a physical safe, and you gave him the code, but the safe contained something that would self-destruct in exposure to air, and must be opened inside an enclosure with inert gas to get at the contents... who would be responsible for destroying the evidence inside the safe?

As a second scenario, what if you had printed a PIN password on a piece of paper and included that in your wallet. If the agent had confiscated your wallet and discovered the paper; and then used that password on your phone? If that was your duress password, who is responsible for destroying evidence in that case?

Legally, Isn't the onus ultimately still on the agent to apply caution before pushing buttons on a device they confiscated?

To blame you the suspect for destroying evidence on something the agent had custody and full physical control over seems a bit far fetched to me.

On a 13" screen most people would have scaling enabled to see it anyway. Not really sure its worth the extra horsepower to push quadruple the pixels, and average them out.

Don't get me wrong, I love 4k screens. My desktop has a pair of 32" 120hz 4k screens.

But on a laptop, especially a 13" model, my priority is going to be battery life, not performance; so 4k is not a hard requirement. Plus this unit features a more old school 3:2 aspect ratio which is arguably more practical and useful than a 1.78:1 widescreen at 13".

Higher than a 13" dell xps. Higher than the 13" Macbook Neo. Higher than a 13" Macbook air... hell it just edges out the display on the Macbook air 15".

Its 120Hz. It's matte. It's touchscreen (if you care).
It seems to be a very solid 13" laptop screen overall.

Though, to be fair - this really isn't an important announcement - its just an improvement developers will appreciate - and a few guys that truly understand hypervisors. The rest of us, at best will say ... 'cool ...'

While not entirely true in desktop land yet - increasingly, more and more things are containerized, then run inside virtualization ... this does matter to everyone, even if its not immediately apparent.

The kind of 'forest management' you're describing is great when practiced around your settlement location, but nobody has ever practiced anything even approaching the concept of 'forest management' to the entirety of the Boreal Forests of Canada.

Of course AIs avoid criticizing authority, they're machines that mimic the statistics of human speech, and human beings are suck-ups.

There's nothing wrong with storing some things *also* in cloud services.

But when it comes to copies of important things, two is one and one is none.

The problem is that we were on the Team plan which is a flat rate plan.

You raise a valid point but it has no substance. Management confronted us and said "you are doing it wrong!" And I stopped them "no, we aren't. even if we are, we can try to economize on tokens. We can get a 100% improvement, 200%? 500%?

It's still order of magnitude LESS than what we were doing and it's costing us, in dollars, twice what we were paying before.

You see, the problem with the Enterprise plan is that, unlike Team or Pro, it does not include any (subsidized) usage. Every token counts towards the budget. And corporate either did not read the fine print, or they had more than 150 developers (the maximum allowed by Team plan) and they were forced to switch.