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.

I'm not a expert in the field but I know I've seen adding potential purchases to a list, vs immediately impulse buying, is often suggested as a way of reducing wastful purchases.

And?

I'm all in favour of investigations into the cause of the incident and the points you raise about it are mostly valid but it's a single example of an animal in a road being killed by an automotive; this is happening constantly with human drivers and isn't even close to being considered news. If the car did something especially concerning or there was a statistical trend that was concerning about animal fatalities and self-driving cars then fine, but short of that this kind of exceptional treatment of events like this is unhelpful.

If you ask for a standard baking recipe it'll almost certainly be fine as it'll just rip off the content from GoodFood or some other site. Ultimately if the recipe it produces isn't dangerous and the person asking is happy with the end result then it was a good output. What's the alternative? Assume that if you search for a recipe or use a recipe book then there's 0% chance the recipe won't be underwhelming?

I'm on the cynical side of just how capable AI is but IMO people like you are being equally extreme in overstating the issues. At a minimum it can be useful as a incremental improvement on regular search, outlining what you want to know and asking for trusted resources to validate results. My experience is the use goes beyond that, although it's a long way from the life changing tool that current vendors like to claim thus far.

That sums up how I talk about it with people generating code. If you can understand what you are asking it to do for you and check it, or have really robust tests and output specifications, then it's helpful. Without those you're basically playing roulette and hoping it doesn't introduce security, accuracy, or performance problems.

We do that for work passwords; there are various tools that can compare hashed passwords against hashes of known compromised passwords and flag accounts. We run these and then get anyone who's password is flagged to reset it. It wouldn't be hard to add it as a signup test on a website either.

Because contrary to the views of a lot of self-centered Americans the rest of the world doesn't have to obey your laws...

No, that's assuming (as they literally make clear in their post) that Amazon want the connection to go to their largest east coast datacenter rather than bum fuck nowhere like you're suggesting.

The reason they aren't suing Drake is pretty obvious. 1. They don't have a contractual relationship with Drake, they do with Spotify and 2. It's a lot easier to prove there is manipulation than it is to prove who was behind the manipulation. My guess is that if they win it isn't unlikely Spotify may go after Drake or restrict payment to him; I suspect they've done nothing up to now because why publicise that your platform is being gamed to shortchange other artists if you don't have to.

There absolutely are influencers who are providing mdeical, financial etc advice and I haven't seen any case law to support the idea that you can give advice as an influencer and use being an 'entertainer' as a defence. There have been cases in the UK where people giving financial advice on social media have been fined for it.

And you can bet they wouldn't certify anyone who disagreed with them as an expert...

I think there's a reasonable case to be made that the collateral, people who can't post even though they are experts due to not being able to evidence it, is a price worth paying because they're drowned out by people making shit up pretending to be experts.

I'd prefer solutions that penalise people for posting false information vs only allowing vetted authorities to post in the first place; although that still has the issue with who decides what is false.