OTOH, this sounds like one of the reasons I prefer debs from the standard repository over things hosted on other sites. Yeah, it's not perfect, but it's safer than lots of project specific repositories. (And it's one of the reasons I try to avoid Javascript, Go, and Rust.)
You're assuming they can't connect to a nearby open wifi net. Some reports have them doing that, though I don't know how valid those reports were.
Maybe not, but some are considering, e.g., salt water. Of course that's for "cloud brightening". And irrigation is already causing some areas to experience excessive salt in the agricultural land.
Lots of things in medicine and biology were discovered long before there was and plausible reason. And how many people understand, e.g., alcohol. Often even when you do understand part of it, you don't understand all.
What this needs is a large double-blind experiment. Worry about the explanations later. (And EXPECT the first ones to be wrong.)
With Passkeys, they have access to your stuff without any oversight by courts and discovery. There are ZERO 4 and 5th Amendment rights to stuff protected by passkeys. They can compel you to unlock your phone, and put your finger on the print reader, and facial scan you
Legally it is untenable how much access they have with Passkeys.
Passcodes cannot be compelled (XKCD hammer notwithstanding). 4th and 5th Amendments apply.
It is dangerous. So is deciding the other way. I think this is one of those cases where there isn't any really good answer. I bet the one they settle on is that "approved" researchers will be allowed to get answers.
If passkeys are movable, then they can be duplicated and reused by nefarious actors as easy as this seems to indicate here.
I have not, and do not, and never will trust passkeys as primary security for anything.
Passkeys can be compelled legally, with and sometimes without a warrant. Passwords cannot be compelled at all. SCOTUS has already set the rules.
Well, sort of. I really have trouble with the initial expansion, though. I've been assured that we're not within a black hole, and that makes it hard to understand how we ever escaped the Schwarzschild radius. Also time runs slower when gravity is stronger.
But, yeah, I'm no expert in the field.
No. The Department of the Army didn 't "replace" the Department of War,, it *was* the Deparrtment of War. Same secretary (Kenneth Royale), same personnel, same everything. Only the name changed. It can trace its unbroken existence back to its founding in 1794 to the present day. The Department of Defense, meanwhile, got the Secretary of the *Navy* (James Forrestal) as its secretary, all new personnel, and was a totally new organization (with John Sullivan as Forrestal's replacement at Navy).
"Dark Energy" doesn't qualify as a theory. There are at least a few theories that explain the observations labeled "Dark Energy". None of them are generally accepted. So, no, there's no competing theory that apparently explains the "anisotropic expansion", though I've got a partial one (I'm no expert in the field). My theory is that the matter of the universe isn't distributed equally, so some parts have more intense exposure to gravity than others. (I've encountered claims that it's really pretty evenly distributed, but I keep running into observations like "The Great Attractor" that seem to deny this.) This would account for "anisotropic expansion",
If "novel" means "unexpected", then it did something novel. In a complex system, don't expect anyone to understand all the pieces and how they interact. I'm sure that there was someone who could have told them "Yeah, that's a possible interaction", but he was probably working in SysOps rather than Research.
Not really. "Corporate personhood" is really a separate concept from being a person. It was created by a legal clerk in, I think it was Southern Pacific vs. Santa Clara, but then became accepted legal principle because it was so convenient. Now it has over 100 years of acceptance behind it.
IIUC, it was called an industrial accident. Of course, that was with a really primitive AI over a decade ago.
The guy who pushed the button didn't intend the result.
When laws say "intentionally" they get really fuzzy in complex situations.
No, the Department of the Army still exists. It was removed from the Cabinet in 1949 but it didn't go anywhere. There was a recent kerfuffle about the Secretary of the Army leaving his position. You may have seen it in the news. The simple fact is that the Department of Defense was an all-new creation and not a renaming of anything.
Pause for storage relocation.
