I see that AI can find bugs that are tedious to find and only exists in corner cases that normal humans usually don't test. For every successful positive test case there can be a large number of negative cases with subvariants. That's where AI might be helpful - create all those test runs.
But to write code that's maintainable, with high performance and stable - that's a different thing.

Test code that doesn't work - just generate a new batch, it won't damage the product you deliver but it might have some flaws.

Hackers often utilizes corner cases when they breach into systems.

This is a desperation attempt to solve a problem; or more like placate voters -- if it works or not is not as important as acting like you are solving a voter issue.

A common (fundamental?) theme in minor to pro-level politics is BLAME management:

The fact corps impose the whole trash problem on *everybody else* to save them money, is masked by making it OUR problem to solve; we are responsible for cleaning it up.
Protection of children (especially if you want to do harmful stuff) is then the responsibility of their guardians to use the laws and tools they promoted to "empower" them. They are the good guys lobbying etc. to give everybody the ability to V-CHIP the internet! So then like the V-CHIP it'll fail but its our failure instead of theirs (to be fair, they never put porn over the airwaves and blame people for not blocking it with the V-CHIP... because that was a BS placating political "solution" from the 90s)

It's funny to suggest that we need age verification to counter immature people who go around making empty death threats like a 12 year old... but is not age tagged so we treat it was serious. Making an argument using them as a reason precisely against their position!

But really, those can be ignored for just about everybody. Now a real person on a phone call can sound really bad and real if done by the right unhinged person; heard it. Now with AI a child can get a really good real sounding threat. While a child calling would sound comical and unfortunately they all know this so we don't get to enjoy their cute death threats. Outside the USA, it's entirely empty when you get those things. Sure you can find 1 example case out of millions of people with lower odds than lightning strikes (and not golfers either.)

Seriously, a user group is all we should standardize as a solution. software can use the flag or not and setting the flag (user group) becomes another issue to fight over.

Find a better source. The idea doesn't originate from that sick woman who is a high priest of the morons. I'm not being insulting, her work is juvenile; it's low maturity for her age and while it resonates with teenagers, a healthy person out grows that in a reasonable time... when they hit their 20s. If you are still stuck, then by definition, you are a moron. Just a fact. Without brain damage, it's theoretically possible you can still learn and grow out of what everybody else has. Not all morons are permanent; though, the old definition of it came at a time when they didn't know brains are extremely adaptable.

Correct.
Americans ARE. TOO. STUPID. (by majority.)

Far from it, the admin loves military contractors! Why? big money.
Safer? they don't care much about that.
Low floor? again, they don't care much; probably the incompetents in charge don't even realize that matters until somebody tells them.

THIS is the solution! Promote it!...
Actually a simple user group "adult" that you add users to who are adults or "underage."

It's not OS enforced; it's STANDARD for software to poll to find out permissions. Engineering wise, shouldn't you use the OS existing permissions system to do this?!!

The law simply applies to software using a simple standard mechanism to determine it. If you want intelligence and security or whatever, those are 3rd party software that handle the user group.

The admin has a JOB to do. That JOB is to set access permissions. If the child becomes an adult, it is the admin's JOB (as a parent?) to set permissions. It should not be automatic or set by age or whatever. That is open ended and is entirely the admin's JOB! If an admin can't handle this simple task, they are too stupid to have children. Child protection services should take away their children; seriously!

Use case for those lacking creativity, a school. A school bans things from children. A child turns 18 but who is still in school and their peers are not yet 18 and the school don't just immediately allow porn or beer in the school at their birthday. An automated date rule would not work realistically in the REAL WORLD. Increased complexity (date+rule) resulting in even more complexity and special case exceptions. Poor design ends up in hacks and data corruption.

We are in the Max Headroom world.

Only way out would be a nasty way.

Users should never be able to do things that cause crashes in the same way that drivers should not ever be able to press any button or press any pedal that causes the engine to spontaneously burst into flames.

I'm also a Mac user, but let's not boast here, shall we?

My personal guess would have been at least 10x. Did Microsoft bribe the study authors?

Dude, are you living under a rock?

These bands are creating new music. But the money that allows them to do so comes from their old music. I have bands in my collection that have been making music for 30 years.

No they don't. They don't even make ok money. Tours are expensive and a lot of people, from road crew to venue security, take their cut before the musicians. The big guys, they make a killing on tours. But the small ones sometimes don't even break even.

In fact, a common wisdom in the industry is that touring is worth it not because the tour itself makes profits, but because it builds a fanbase and drives what is called "catalog discovery" - both old and new fans looking buying the albums with the songs they liked (and for the old fans, didn't know).

This study: https://www.giarts.org/article... says that 28% of income across all the musicians surveyed comes from tours. The share is larger for the rock/pop sector where it nears 40% but even that isn't easy money. And if you consider that only 20% of the rock/pop musicians make more than $50,000 a year, then it becomes a hollow statement.

Plus, it goes directly against your first statement - while on tour the band is not creating new music. So if you want to drive musicians more towards constantly creating (which most of them already do), then you can't make live performances the main income source.

Mostly just in the bulk, low barriers to entry, and pervasiveness(like a lot of things social media). The case of actors actually goes back a long way; state laws regarding compensation of child actors were spurred by the case of one who was popular in the 1920s and litigated with his parents over where the money wasn't in 1939. That case doesn't provide for takedowns; but it's also the case that filmmakers are normally looking for children to play characters; rather than to do 'candid' intense documentaries of them at home; so the degree of public exposure of private life is presumably deemed to be less; with the main issue being children who were...definitely...getting a solid education while on stage finding that all the money was gone when it became their problem.

Child-blogging, by contrast, seems to reward verisimilitude (if not necessarily truth) and invasiveness, relatively pervasive in-home mining for 'content', so presumably seems better served by removal-focused options; though there has definitely been talk about covering the economic angle in line with child actors.

I don't even know what the deal is with child beauty pageants, or how something you'd assume is a salacious bit of slander about what pedophile cabals are totally doing, somewhere, is actually a thing a slice of parents are into, way, way, into. Apparently that's a third rail to someone, though, as the only jurisdiction I'm aware of with significant restrictions on them is France.

Unless quantum computing becomes cheap and comparatively widely available quite quickly after becoming viable passwords seem like they'll be a manageable problem. Nobody likes rotating them; but it's merely tedious to do and the passwords themselves are of zero interest unless they are still being accepted. If it does go from 'not possible' to 'so cheap we can just go through through in bulk' overnight that could ruin some people's days; but if there's any interval of 'nope, the fancy physics machine in the dilution refrigerator is currently booked by someone with a nation state intelligence budget' you can just rotate older credentials.

Now, if you were hoping that encryption was going to save any secrets that are interesting in and of themselves that got out in encrypted form; then you have a problem. Those can't be readily changed and will just be waiting.

It could be done in a way that Apple does not know the key and is technologically unable to comply. But for such a low stakes system they would obviously never go through the trouble as it would cause more user friction than it's worth.

(You could have a privacy email be created as a totally unique auth key that's just stored offline on a User's apple computers and synced via an encrypted storage system).

Of course Apple could still associate source IPs for logins between multiple accounts.

Assuming it's remotely true (and there's good reason for thinking it isn't), it still means the FBI director was negligent in their choice of personal email provider, that the email provider had incompetent security, and that the government's failure to either have an Internet Czar (the post exists) or to enforce high standards on Internet services are a threat to the security of the nation (since we already know malware can cross airgaps through negligence, the DoD has been hit that way a few times). The FBI director could have copied unknown quantities of malware onto government machines through lax standards, any of which could have delivered classified information over the Internet (we know this because it has also happened to the DoD).

In short, the existence of the hack is a minor concern relative to every single implication that hack has.