Meaning something public/visible, being given away (free software and documentation), and with a government funding/planning to use it?

I'm sure someone smart in academia has already worked on it, but I wouldn't know where to start looking for the intersection of computer science and ???.

I've tossed around the beginnings of ideas, but eventually assumed effective digital identity + authentication was an initial requirement for effective remote electronic voting. Doesn't matter how perfect the system is if you're not sure who cast the vote. Last I looked, a few places were dipping toes into that water (UK, US CA/NY?), but not where I live.

I doubt companies want to publish specifically how they're using AI, in case their competitors aren't doing that yet.

But would an AI company collect, and try to advertise, all the ways their tool(s) are benefiting companies? And lay out the information organized by job title or department. "Here is a list of things we believe we're good enough at..."

Yes, I'm worried about AI breaking our economy if we don't change how things work. But I have no visibility into details beyond the extreme claims from both sides (AI will save/ruin us). I've been out of the labor market for a very long time (health issues I'm slowly working around), so I'm double damned now (yet another unemployed SW engineer).

I came here to make sure the above comment was already visible, but I also sat and thought for a moment. What would be the real solution versus "invent + 1" solution too...

What about a layer that interacted with each local package manager? Basically an easily installed wrapper for any native package manager. It wouldn't do everything the native managers did, but it could offer synonyms between them (RPM names = DEB names) to let people use the terms they're familiar with.

No it isn't solving 100% the same problem, but I'm not sure that is likely to happen in one shot. This would create the interface first. Let them work out the bugs between what can and can't be shared, and later they could try to unify the packages themselves (parameterize what can be shared, etc).

Or maybe I just don't understand all the problems they're solving here. As it stands they're duplicating the native package management work AND making a new interface, right?

If they're predatory, then why can't less predatory people step in?

What prevents better lending?

If only Google saw this and added a way to allow this to run on ALL Android phones.

A number in a vacuum doesn't explain much.

Butterfly environments... did those expand or shrink in quantity and/or area?

What eat them? What do they eat? Do they provide much utility in the ecosystem (I can't remember anymore)? Etc

Or claimed data because of a lack of imagination.

When creating a product you often put in methods to access data. Test support plumbing that might not be easily removed at the end (how can you test the final product if you're missing required parts?).

My guess is they found something like that. Sometimes security is 'by obscurity'. A poor policy choice, but not uncommon.

Or yeah, maybe it's a backdoor used by someone else (heck I'll bet the US and EU would frame China).

I meant a mistake in creating the firmware flags answer for their exact device, maybe (like by whoever used the ESP32, or the researcher looking for problems to report).

Seems like a bug in flashing or test mode.

"Ulefone phones have a variety of battery capacities, including 9,000 mAh, 13,200 mAh, 22,000 mAh, and 33,280 mAh.
Battery capacities by model

        Ulefone Power Armor 14 Pro: Has a 9,000 mAh rated capacity and 10,000 mAh typical value
        Ulefone Armor 24: Has a 22,000 mAh lithium-polymer battery
        Ulefone Power Armor 13: Has a 13,200 mAh lithium-polymer battery
        Ulefone Armor Pad 3 Pro: Has a 33,280 mAh battery ..."

Meaning they have no automated and effective way to know if a lawyer is lying about a citation or not. Meaning they're not doing their own jobs effectively, and to point that out... they're going to penalize someone for a mistake that they DID catch.

Fire a bunch of people back in 2017, and yeah... forecasts from today may look rosy too.

But lets play the game. AI is just better tools. Meaning if we used to pay someone to do it before, we might use AI to do it instead. And why not sell what the AI created afterward? Why force AI to recreate the wheel every time?

You're a moron Trump, and you know it. Quit now before you embarrass yourself, even more.

Feels like a case of 'if your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail'. They have no influence and don't want to admit it.

"We can't get valid data, so we'll blame the data."