https://storage.courtlistener....

IANAL, but it sure seems to me the administration lost on all of the claims (except for one or two where the judge said, "I don't need to go here, because I've already made it moot.")

Now there's still the other case on this, which is in the DC Court of Appeals, addressing one specific law where the recourse is that venue. Briefs are due in April, so the first hearing will probably be in May. Track that case here: https://www.courtlistener.com/...

Sometimes can make you sick!

There's more to it than just 'smaller'. Cellphone OS are designed to provide a smaller attack surfaces. They provide less access (iOS provides no conventional user-visible file system) in exchange for that security.

But consider: Here an iOS vulnerability makes headlines. A new Windows vulnerability is just "meh".

I find it interesting that some here would want operating system vendors to be legally liable for security vulnerabilities? Will they also accept legal liability for bugs in their own applications? I've been calling for that for decades, but have been mostly shouted down by people who won't accept that responsibility for their own code. (When I left the job where I wrote real production code, I gave my successor a personal warranty. "If you find a bug, call, and I'll help find and fix it for free." She never called, and years later I talked to her. "No problems reported with that package", which was widely used across the application to glue the user interface to the application logic.)

Mark Gurman says a lot of stuff about Apple that turns out to be false. How will that be functionally different from AI Hallucinations about Apple?

I believe there needs to be a coherent approach to countering this. That includes legal actions, political actions, and probably actions on the ground. The core problem is coming up with and then disseminating that approach between now and early November.

Well, when the heavily armed and masked ICE agents arrive at your polling place, I hope you are ready to tell them to go away...

Some significant proportion of states, including some with potentially close elections, have governors who would probably not resist. But the interviews I've heard with state and particularly local election officials show a high degree of concern. (Of course, it's only those who are worried who would get on the radio. But there's enough of those to justify a perception those anecdotal reports represent more than just a couple outliers.)

I think Bernie sits in an economic bubble that is almost as irrational and dense as Trump's bubble. "Medicare for all" at current reimbursement rates would bankrupt much of the health care system. Our local hospital estimated 18 months. "Tax the rich" to pay for current spending would dive deep into the upper middle class and even middle class. And there's no Constitutional basis for a 'wealth tax'.

My friend (college classmate) who lives in Vermont has been railing about Bernie's inability to actually deliver meaningful results for his constituents for a long time. My friend's town was badly damaged by the floods a couple of years ago, and Bernie has delivered no relief to that town in getting the promised federal reimbursements for bridge replacements, etc.

Your "1 week" cost estimate is probably off by 2 orders of magnitude. Otherwise, I pretty much agree with you.

Apparently, some of the problems created by Trump (e.g. war with Iran, high gas prices, high prices due to tariffs, the broken promises and cover-up of the Epstein Files) is making its way through the MAGA social media bubble.

But the really REALLY scary thing is the prospect of disrupting the mid-term elections. See https://www.lawfaremedia.org/a... The risk here is not the actual success of an EO, but the chaos it would create if executed close to the election date. Courts take a long time/deliberate process to respond. I really don't know what happens if the Monday before Election Day Trump signs this order, and then mobilizes federal resources (DHS's ICE private police, even federalizing the National Guard) to "protect" polling places and to "secure" ballot boxes.

One is in Northern District of California: https://www.courtlistener.com/... This is probably the main event. There's an initial complaint and then a request for Temporary Restraining Order.

The other action is in the DC Circuit: https://www.courtlistener.com/... IANAL, but I think it's here because of requirements around disputes that could go to the Court of Claims but that have Constitutional or other non-contractual aspects vector directly to the DC Circuit.

It's always worth finding the docket and reading the complaint, the response, the various legal briefs (and amici briefs) and then the decision. Don't depend on others to summarize this for you, I often find a lot of nuance in there that the brief news summaries miss. (I also find A LOT of bullshit arguments, and legal mumbo-jumbo, but the more of these you read, the easier it gets.)

p.s. It's not officially the Department of War until CONGRESS changes the name.

And has suddenly discovered "principles"? OK...

Will there be an ejection option on each seat as part of the flight attendant controls?

So it's OK to sign a contract, then decide the contract is 'morally unacceptable" and break it? Sweeney can decide it's "morally unacceptable" to not criticize Google next year. And then if Google goes to enforce that contract, Sweeney will sue Google...

Not much, after Sweeney tried to slip a version of Fortnite that deliberately broke the contract Fortnight signed with Apple. (Independent of the merits of the Apple/Epic case, that was definitely a dick move by Sweeney.)

And of course, the response by the IT departments when I've complained to them about this (including universities and companies) was "We can't do anything about it." This is the fundamental problem with outsourcing. Organization disclaim any responsibility for what their contractor does (or does not) do on their behalf.

(My email's domain name is MUCH older than Microsoft.com)

There were a bunch of fiction books written in the late 1970s through mid 1980s about a Soviet/NATO war in Europe. Many of them ended with a limited nuclear exchange. I think the general feeling was that the Soviets would get stalled short of their objective (the Rhine), there'd be a brief nuclear exchange, and both sides would basically stop, horrified by what happened and what might happen next.

Of course, the war plans of the times included nuclear options along with criteria for when that option would be considered. Part of that was to work out how Our Side would respond if The Other Side did something like that.

Now if LLMs were trained on that literature (and no reason to think they weren't....), it's not surprising tactical nuclear weapons would be in the LLM's "vocabulary." Another consideration would be the LLM knows how to do nuclear targeting, and decides that a nuclear weapon produces a tactically valid solution.

Wars, though, ultimately are fought by people, with all their prejudices, biases, and morality (or lack thereof.)