Not only is it better to use a direct method of measuring distance vs inferring, but it also has the benefit that direct methods of perceiving distance often detect the edge cases where inferring distance from video gives dangerously incorrect answers (see hitting the side of lorries that are too similar colour to the background).

The person you are responding to makes the unsubstantiated claim that Google are only retaining lidar due to it being a sunk cost, but it seems much more likely that Tesla is only refusing to incorporate it (given how affordable it is now) because they'd have to admit they'd be wrong and lying about it being better for years.

This story is being reported incredibly poorly in most places. He isn't being prosecuted for destroying evidence, the statute he is charged under covers destroying something to stop it being seized. There is no requirement that what was destroyed be criminal in nature or evidence relating to some other crime. The government are asserting that they have broad powers to seize items at borders without the need for warrants etc which worrying is true as there are laws allowing this that have been around long enough to be challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court without being found to be unconstitutional. If he had wiped the phone before being detained, or potentially after being detained but when he had plausible deniability that they may want to seize his phone, then he wouldn't have done anything wrong under that statute.

I think you are making a couple of assumptions that don't pass muster. If they ask you for a PIN, you provide a PIN, they enter the PIN, the phone then likely shows some form of reset notification, then the next time a screen comes up it is to setup a fresh device then they have plenty of evidence the device wasn't wiped until they entered the PIN. Why that matters in this case is they aren't pursuing him specifically because the device is wiped, but because of dishonesty/trickery in providing a reset code instead of the unlock code when asked which is against the law in this scenario. If the phone was blank, or he wiped it himself, there would have been no criminality; which is why your position (don't fly there without wiping the phone first) is the one I'd advocate to anyone it is viable for.

I don't agree with Trump on just about everything but I really don't think this is dumb. Sure there are issues around it, but having basically no ability to access the core components of any computing device without being reliant on China should be a major concern to any major economy.

It's arguably considerably simpler to migrate putting electronic devices together relatively quickly than to go from having no chip-manufacturing capability to having it given the specialist equipment and other complexities. It also makes producing downstream products in the US more attractive if the components don't have to be bought and shipped from China. Governments in countries like the US should be treating the entire supply chain for eletronics like they treat energy and other critical infrastructure, all the way through from sourcing rare earth minerals etc to products in stores or weapons in armouries.

Are there really Cyber-Insurance vendors people are picking that don't include considerable cover for disruption? I've met with two IT leadership teams who've been through major incidents with two different insurance vendors where they had faced significant disruption; in both cases the insurer helped them source and deploy alternative infrastructure/services and were willing to spend a considerable amount to minimise the impact of the incident. The assumption is that this was motivated by the fact the insurer benefits by limiting the cost of the incident.

From a legal perspective a random number generator deciding who to refuse to do business would be perfectly legal so that really isn't an issue for the stores; unless someone barred could prove something like it disproportionately flagging black people incorrectly or similar.

There is nothing in the description saying people are being detained, and I doubt that is happening in the vast majority of cases, but obviously detaining someone who hasn't committed a crime would be a really dumb thing to do that could get both the store and the person who unlawfully detained someone in trouble.https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/07/12/0259226/facial-recognition-in-uk-shops-will-soon-instantly-alert-police-about-offenders#

Tell everyone you haven't read or understood the summary without telling everyone... the certificate expiry is baked into the product. It will not work even if you hadn't updated it once since installation. I assume they'd need to put out an update, and users would need to install it, for it to remain usable.

I think most people appreciate that there is a difference between not fixing something and selling something as perpetually licensed while it is literally built to stop working at a point in the future without telling the people who are buying it. Where do you think the line would be before this would be problematic? Would it be fine if they'd set the license to expire the day after support went end of life in 2023 (meaning some people would only have got 3 years of use with their perpetual license). In this case what makes it entirely Microsoft's responsibility, and likely liability, is that the functionality that is breaking is validating licenses. So Microsoft sold a perpetual licence, and Microsoft built something that meant refuses to accept the perpetual license. In my opinion a license that expires is obviously not a perpetual license.

I don't disagree with your post, though I think it's easy to externalise blame to mega-corps and ignore our own complicity and even enthuasiam for the change.

Just taking the last example. Spruce Eats et al exist because people visit them and they make money. If Spruce Eats is rubbish then it is easy to exclude it when searching but people don't. If people were willing to pay for good quality content then we'd have good quality sources out there to use, but they aren't so we've got whatever parasitical organisation can extract the maximum ad revenue for the minimum expense instead.

Thanks for highlighting this. Virtually none of the coverage has and that makes the description misleading as in general contracts in the UK don't require signatures, or even that it be in writing at all.

I think you're missing quite a lot of evidence to the contrary in that example. Pre-built campaigns are a big thing in D&D etc and there are plenty of tools that help with generating content for DMs. The setting for many D&D campaigns etc are well established worlds as created by the publishers. I'm not advocating for AI to do any of this just that many/most DMs at the moment are already leaning on content from other sources already so AI is just another (likely worse currently) source.

In this case I don't think its what GW are talking about. They are saying the rules, stories, and miniatures will not include AI generated content, which in D&D terms is just Hasbro(?) saying the stuff in the rulebooks isn't AI generated.

Which would be fine if that an accurate comparison. A gas bill might be one of the options you could use for proof of address, and there are many alternatives. Proving identity for work pretty much relies on government issued documents like passports, drivers licenses etc already. You may prefer having to have another piece of identification but we're doing fine without it tyvm.

What's pathetic is that you just made the point that you would cooperate for certain crimes; but somehow aren't smart enough to realise that when you would or wouldn't cooperate is irrelevant if you don't have control over when law enforcement can get the footage.

Your own comment highlights the gap. You buy it for if your property is targeted, however these vendors will generally share footage with law enforcement in all circumstances including when your property isn't targetted and without your agreement. That may not be an issue for you, and that's your decision, but it is definitely not something I would want for a camera on my property.

If someone commits a crime on my property I am more than capable of agreeing to release the footage to law enforcement myself so it's hardly a selling point that they can get it without me agreeing.

Multi-layer security doesn't mean doing the same thing done multiple ways, for example you don't typically run multiple antivirus applications or multiple software firewalls on the same device do you? It's about layers of security: Security lights, decent locks, CCTV, intruder alarms etc.

There is nothing you outline here that doesn't make using WIFI cameras either less effective than using wired cameras OR make it no better but more expensive. If you have two cameras covering an area than would you make your best position WIFI just to lose it if jammed and only have the inferior wired feed. If you put the wired feed in the best location then what's the point in the jammable WIFI backup. You're delusional if you think burglers even think about if cameras are WIFI or not. Burglers aren't turning up and WIFI scanning to see if cameras are WIFI or not, they just turn the jammer on when they arrive at whatever home they are burgling.

Don't use WIFI cameras, if you must because it's literally impossible to network the location, AND it's very difficult to access, then make sure it has local storage that is sufficient to retain any footage from during a period where it is jammed.