I hear people making this claim but they never offer any examples. Please, post an example of what you're doing or a link to a blog showing such an example. Not a trivial one, a real world example. It would help a lot of people if you did.

Thanks.

I guess you can read "this fraud" as either "this specific fraud" or "this type of fraud". I took it as she helped setup the Arizona laptop prior to getting arrested.

Protection against abusive doctors or for creating real-world training videos (USA has students finger anesthetized patients without their knowledge for training, so why not simple training vids?). Find the person smearing shit or leaving trash in the breastfeeding rooms. Handling abuse claims. Etc... It's easy to come up with a bunch of useful reasons for having the cameras. Easy to come up with a bunch of reasons for not having them too.

Everyone knows Amazon is very metrics driven. They must be doing a fuckton of employee data mining to have these types of data points to look at.

No one has skimmed the article. There was a US-based women fronting for them.

There are lots of gift card scams and they're probably not naming the retailer because it can happen to any retailer. One of the scams is stealing the cards, recording their numbers, then repackaging them to look like new (you can buy scratch off security stickers) and smuggling them back into the store. The scammer has software automatically checking those numbers to see when the card is activated and as soon as they notice they use the funds.

Yes, however the new push goes far further than that. Your OS will block any adult related on-screen content unless you verify you're an adult. You also won't be able to take any adult looking photos or videos. That's what lawmakers are currently working towards in the UK: https://winbuzzer.com/2025/12/... I guess in the future criminals, politicians, and celebrities will wear naked-looking body suits in an attempt block cameras from recording them... actually the rich and their buddies will just have embedded watermarks that will block recording them.

This is the slippery slope that started with printers printing hidden serial numbers on whatever you print and scanners refusing to scan paper money. The tech already exists that turns off recording when a camera sees a hidden watermark. Microsoft is now screen-scraping everything you do. Apple demonstrated they can build that as well. Desktop linux is a mashup of different software, so who knows how that'll turn out. Maybe the new laws will force any linux using business to use a specific OS distribution which supports the adult limitations. I can easily see some distros pushing for that as it would up their use base. And it can all be enforced through Secure Boot security keys. Maybe parents not using it will be charged with child endangerment. In the USA, the laws would be like abortion laws were whomever taddles on the parents could earn 10k. This is all technically doable, it won't be perfect but that never stops people from trying. This all will happen. The religions will push for it, the sex crazed people in authority push for it (out of self-hatred or something?), data mining companies want it, power greedy people want it, and government intelligence people want it. The people who don't want it will be labeled pedophiles and groomers. The only question is how long it'll take to happen.

The company's entire existence is for engaging in fraud. The hacker should have reported them to the police, their offices raided, and all of them should be in jail awaiting trials.

That article is 10 years old. A lot has changed in airport security since then. The article even says the Head was replaced right after the report came out and a bunch of changes were being ordered at a ton of airports. Maybe it's still 95% or maybe not, but either way, that article is too old to be used for claims in 2025.

The fact that TSA has caught people means it isn't complete theater. If it's worth it or not is a different discussion.

Question: How does my mattress company reach 100% saturation.
AI Answer: Kill all humans. Target population: 0%. 100% Saturation achieved.

... (some screams later) ...

Police Transcript: Perp: "The AI told me to do it! It's a government service so this is entrapment. You can't arrest me!"
Police Transcript: Agent 1: "Dang, our Police Rulebook Chatbot says he's right. Let him go."

You missed the point. It was Paypal who was stealing the money. If they didn't like your transactions for any reason, such as if you didn't use the service for 8 months then suddenly sold 5 things in a row, they might freeze your account and keep any money it contained. You had/have no recourse.

Outsourcing doesn't matter. The last interview I had ended up being for a senior Perl developer despite me having no Perl experience and Perl not being listed on their job description. I was qualified for the job they advertised but that wasn't the job they were hiring for. They interviewed me because I emailed them to point out a mistake in their job application (could only type in numbers for a text-based answer). That was a small business where their head and only HR person also helped with their software development. I have no clue what the company was thinking and I'm sure they're complaining about how they can't find anyone experienced. I checked their website 3 months after that interview and the job posting was still active.

15? If they did hiring like some states require landlords to hire tenants, they'd look through their applications in order and hire the first applicant who meets their predefined requirements for the job. Another option if they know a little bit about statistics and expect to review 400 applications to find someone, then they'd find the best applicant out of the first 20 then hire the next applicant who is better than that one (20 = square root of 400).

HR are supposed to be good at HRing, so they should at least know about those two options and have good reasons why they picked a supposedly more efficient hiring technique. Right? With all these job applications flying around, companies shouldn't have positions unfulfilled for very long.

So what's he's saying is they're adding AI related hooks to their extensions API so anyone can add whatever AI they want to whatever aspect of the browser they want? Right? Right? And they're going to drop the random sidebar AI and right-click AI entries which seem to be a strictly limited to whatever limited vision they have for what a browser AI should be? Or is this new corporate bullshitter just as bullshitty as the normal bullshitters?

I think the summary ignored the more important 2/3rds of the announcement.

Please, pretty please make it an extension. You can include extensions installed by default if you want. But lets us completely remove things we don't want or swap them out with someone else's.

1) Changing your UI to be more similar to a worse UI is fucking up that UI. The UI includes far more than the shape of the buttons or the complete disregard for a well designed scroll bar. One of the things they intentionally made worse in order to improve bullshit metrics of their Download toolbar button was the "Save File" vs "Open File" feature. Previously the "Open File" created a temp file that disappeared when you were done with it. This was really useful, such as when opening a bank statement then saving it with the proper statement date (which isn't included in the filename of most statements you download). The updated version of that saves the file in your Downloads folder and you have to manually remember to delete it. Firefox viewed the extra clicks on their toolbar button (Click -> Right click on file -> Delete) as improved user interaction (and thus claimed people enjoyed that feature more) rather than the annoying, wasteful extra steps it actually is. Intentionally making workflows worse is fucking up the UI. They do it a lot and just because other companies do it too doesn't give them an excuse to continue doing it. It's possible to be better than everyone else and not fuck things up. They intentional choose not to.

2) They absolutely did fuck up the extensions. The extensions that are important to you aren't the same extensions that are important to other people. Yes the browser needed to be updated, but they didn't release new APIs that covered all the possibilities of the older extensions. There were a lot of UI things the old extensions could do that they no longer can. (Also the UI for just getting to an extension's settings is horrible.) Though I agree with you that this is an old issue. But still, they could be improving the extension API to give more control over the browser but it doesn't seem like they are.

3) One of the original points of Firefox was that features were extensions. That's completely gone. All these new features should have been provided as extensions. Further, the settings to turn things off are very certainly not clearly documented. about:config could have a description column but doesn't. You can't consider anything in there as documented. The Settings page is very poorly designed and doesn't let you toggle a bunch of things on/off. None of the settings have tooltips and only a few have additional help/descriptions linked with them. The page is poorly designed because there's a huge mixture of UI controls with some changing the current page, others opening pop-ups, others opening in new tabs, hiding/showing new options, etc... and it's not clear which of those controls will do what. Some block you from going back, or at least some give you a Back arrow and others don't. There's settings grouped by sidebar 'tabs' but there are groups within those tabs which don't have indexes nor give you an overview of where something is. Sometimes there are lines separating some of those inner groups and sometimes not. There's a mishmash of different text stylings. If you study it closely you can figure out there's subgroups of subgroups, but since nothing is indented and there's no index, it just looks like a mess.

4) Yeah, there's a ton of idiots who say they don't like change X so they'll switch to a browser which has even more things they claim to dislike.