Let me spell it out very plainly because you don’t get it. It’s my car. It’s my battery. When I plug it into the wall, I expect the charge in my car to go up, not down. That battery is part of my car that I need to use to drive around town. At no point do I want the electric company to commandeer the power in my car to reduce my range.

MF’ers need to stop using my car, my battery, and my electricity like their own personal infrastructure they can control as they prefer.

I plug my car into the wall in order to charge it and increase range. At no point do I want to supply power back to the house and decrease my car's range. That defeats the purpose of having a car: to be able to drive around.

Cars are not meant to be temporary batteries to supplement the power from the electric company.

I put off going to Star Trek conventions for years. I always assumed I could go in the future and see all these people who played my favorite characters. The death of Nichelle Nichols finally made me realize that if I ever wanted to see these people while they were alive, I needed to finally do it. I finally went to my first convention in 2024. I saw Koenig, Shatner, and the crews of the other shows. It was fantastic.

I am sad I didn't go earlier when I could have also seen Nichols, Nimoy, Kelley, and Doohan. I wish I realized much earlier that they had a limited time left for me to see them myself.

Point being: if you want to see these folks who played characters you loved, don't wait! We all have a limited amount of time on Earth. If it's important to you to sit in the same room, breathe the same air, and listen to their stories in person, then do it now. Don't put it off to later.

Sort work by priority. With or without AI, the high priority, high impact work gets done. The ability to use AI and code fast means that teams can now also address the low priority work that has low impact... Big whoop. Companies are increasingly learning AI isn't worth the extraordinary cost.

The whole point of a login system is to authenticate users and enforce access controls. When someone enters valid credentials and the system grants access, that is meaningful evidence that the system recognizes their access rights. You can't simply dismiss that fact and insist that access was unauthorized without explaining what authorization was missing.

Of course, a successful login doesn't grant unlimited privileges. Systems can restrict access to specific files, databases, or functions. But there is a difference between being denied access by the system and being accused of misusing access the system actually granted.

The Supreme Court recognized this distinction in Van Buren v. United States (2021). It ruled that using authorized access for an improper purpose does not, by itself, violate the CFAA's “exceeds authorized access” provision.

The burden is to establish what access was prohibited and how the person crossed that boundary. It's not enough to assert that permission was absent despite the system accepting their credentials.

I'm sorry, I don't buy this story from the police agencies that these guys didn't have permission. If you can log into a system, then you have permission to access that system. That's the whole point of the login process: to determine who can authenticate and authorize usage of a system.

If police agencies wanted to remove permission, then they should have blocked their former users' credentials from accessing the system. This nonsense argument shifts the blame from the agencies mismanaging their users to the individual users who should have been disabled and not allowed to access this information in the first place!

This part of the story seems intended to excuse the sloppy security of police agencies.

That’s fine if they’re charging less than a hotel. Problem is that they now want to charge more than a hotel. Then they add a cleaning charge. They’ve priced themselves as more expensive than the hotels while handing guests a chore sheet. That’s ridiculous.

Yes, it’s galling to get charged a cleaning fee after washing dishes, drying them, putting them away, washing the bedding and towels, folding the towels, making the bed, taking the trash to the can, taking the can to the curb, sweeping and mopping the floor, vacuuming, etc.

The truly galling thing is that the list of chores existed for the guest in the first place.

Airbnb competes with hotels. A hotel will send a person to your room every day to replace your towels, make your bed, tidy the room, refill your toilet paper, and take out the trash. They do it automatically as part of the cost of renting the room. No extra cleaning fee involved.

Airbnb charges you the same or more than a hotel. And, that comes with a list of chores.

Yes, they may also charge you a cleaning fee on top of the list of chores, which is extra insulting. But, the real problem was the owners expecting the renters to perform chores when they’re supposed to be a guest.

A hotel cleans up after its guests. They happily come to your room every day and make the bed, take out the trash, and tidy up the place. Airbnb competes against hotels. Airbnb units are just as expensive as full service hotels. But, those units have also been requiring guests to wash dishes, wash bedding, remake the bed, sweep floors, take the trash to the can, take the can to the curb, etc. Hotels take care of you while you get a list of chores at Airbnb. It’s clear that hotels offer a better experience today. Airbnb isn’t worth the money and hassle.

That’s all true outside the US as it is inside. There’s nothing uniquely terrible about America or Americans regarding this topic.

Rename the Gulf or a Great Lake? Sure. Whatever. Renaming this whole branch of computer science? No. Not going to happen. Dude is delusional to even try.

Started my CS classes in 2000. The intro professor literally stated the cliche, "look at the person on your left. Now look at the person on your right. One of you won't be here by the end of the semester."

But the purpose of the stop was not enforcement of the vehicle code.

"When there is not probable cause to believe that a driver is violating any one of the multitude of applicable traffic and equipment regulations 24 -- or other articulable basis amounting to reasonable suspicion that the driver is unlicensed or his vehicle unregistered -- we cannot conceive of any legitimate basis upon which a patrolman could decide that stopping a particular driver for a spot check would be more productive than stopping any other driver." Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 661, 99 S. Ct. 1391, 1400 (1979)

In California, as I suspect in most states, the driver is required to produce a license and registration when being pulled over for a traffic stop.

California Vehicle Code 12951(b) states: "The driver of a motor vehicle shall present his or her license for examination upon demand of a peace officer enforcing the provisions of this code."

Since the vehicle was not involved, the stop would not require a license to of produced. Of course, the cop would lie and make up a reason.

You are conflating a consensual encounter with a detention.

No, when they decide not to show up or release someone that they should have detained.

Read Terry v. Ohio | 392 U.S. 1 (1968) and Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004) 542 U.S. 177