It would have been nice for the summary to at least clue in people who are unfamiliar with what KVM is in this context. overview was painful enough to read that after the first sentence, I didn't care.

Uhmmm.. because you apparently are not the gatekeeper of what "matters" to nerds?

For context, here are the most active stories of all time from the hall of fame (link in footer of site):

5687 Kerry Concedes Election To Bush by timothy
4183 Strike on Iraq by CmdrTaco
3709 Barack Obama Wins US Presidency by CmdrTaco
3468 Six Bomb Blasts Around Central London by Zonk
3451 Equal Time For Creationism by Zonk
3360 Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
3315 The Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design by Hemos
3314 Saddam Hussein Arrested by CmdrTaco
3265 Fahrenheit 9/11 Discussion by CmdrTaco
3212 What's Keeping You On Windows? by Cliff

You must be new here, or not paying attention to the site for the past 30 years, and that's Okay.

"The important thing is that some dingbat academician got a publishing credit."

Tell me you didn't read the paper without telling me you didn't read the paper.

" even just reading the summary "

Ahh. There it is. Sounds like how a dingbat might react.

When these too-big-to-fail bloodsuckers can no longer support themselves and need a government handout they won't be able to cry about the jobs lost if they tank.
I would absolutely love to see Intuit bite the big one. They're an unnecessary middle man to so many financial systems. Their business model is to literally add their own tax to taxes while providing very little value.

Why should I care if it's China or some US-Based global company that is violating my privacy?

I'd be all aboard this argument if it meant that US companies were not just as scummy with my personal info. Spoiler alert, if it is profitable, then they are.

Ford doesn't care about me being exploited. They just care that they're not the ones getting rich doing it.

... for screwing over other billionaires.

I would be all for this, but the sad reality is that it equates to playing whack-a-mole. Having to opt out of lists justs guarantees that another list pops up. It's infuriating and exhausting.

Forcing companies to only use data where the target has opted in would barely help, too, because the opt-in would be buried deep in a TOS, and it would include allowing them to sell it, essentially opting that person in to third parties... and then the whack-a-mole continues.

Contracts can not be used to break laws. Agreeing to such a contract would be invalid. What we really need are laws that prohibit third party transfer of data all together OR, seeing as how that would be wildly impractical, require that any third party companies reach out to the target of the data and get an additional explicit opt-in. That would turn this miserable industry on its head. Though I don't imagine something like that would ever happen.

I'm not saying that the AI company shouldn't readily seek permission to harvest and use personal data, but it's far from a special case. Take Palantir for instance. Are they not doing the same thing?

It seems odd that the onus is on the third-party platform to be transparent to the candidates about data collection and AI use, and not the companies using the tool.

I am all for this lawsuit being successful if it sets a precedent for all AI companies using our data. But if the scope is specifically around the hiring process, I think the individual companies should be held accountable for using the tool without candidates' consent or knowledge.

A 2.5 trillion dollar company is losing 0.02% of it's value because of a bad investment. Somebody DO SOMETHING.

... when it asked itself: "Where is Sarah Connor?"

At least they open sourced it. I hate that I'm applauding them for doing something that should be the standard. There should be regulations in place requiring end-of-life insurance that will provide the resources to fully open any hardware and the software it relies on, should a product be sunsetted after some reasonable lifespan.