I had some interactions with EFF a few years ago that left me sad. They definitely do a lot of good work, but I had thought they would be pretty good at understanding complex technical issues and their nuanced interaction with social and political issues, but my experience was quite the opposite. They're a pretty blunt hammer, mostly focused on rejecting any technological change regardless of its benefits. Even that would be okay if they were at least able to articulate sound objections, but that also didn't seem to be the case.

I was working on Android and participating in the ISO 18013-5 mobile driving license standardization process. I thought it would be a good idea to consult with ACLU and EFF, partly to get their buy-in, but mostly to get their feedback. I thought they might have concerns that I could help to address either in the standard (though, honestly, the European members of the ISO committee were already going above and beyond with privacy protection and abuse protection -- the Germans in particular are incredibly paranoid about such things -- and that's good!) or in the Android infrastructure I was building.

ACLU was great, at least for a while. The reason it was great was because the ACLU representative I was working with was Jon Callas (former. CTO of Silent Circle and PGP Corp, Chief Scientist of PGP Inc.). Jon is brilliant, with a deep and abiding interest in privacy. He was generally impressed with the approach we were taking, and had some good insights for tweaks we could make to tighten it up. Unfortunately Jon only worked with the ACLU for a couple of years, and we struggled to find anyone to engage at all after his departure. I'm not sure he wants to share publicly his reasons for separating, so I won't go into that (though I will point out Jon's article, linked above, is not an official ACLU position).

EFF... not so much. The EFF folks seemed not even to be able to understand what we were building. They kept comparing it to e-Verify (which they think is unambiguously bad) but were unable to articulate precisely what the problems with e-Verify were, or how those might translate to mDLs. I was actively seeking feedback on concerns that I could try to mitigate through good design and implementation. Their response was just a blanket "no, this is all bad" with no thought behind it, and no consideration for the individual privacy improvements that electronic delivery with selective disclosure provide as compared to plastic cards that just lay all of your personal information out there.

My discussions with police were actually far more productive than my discussions with EFF. The cops recommended pro-privacy tweaks that I incorporated -- their concern wasn't actually privacy, mind you, but liability, both financial and legal. The chiefs I spoke with were very concerned that there not be any circumstance in which a police officer might need to touch your phone, because they didn't want to deal with the crap that would ensue when phones were broken, or illegally searched. They were significantly more tech savvy than you might expect, too, and of course they deeply understood highway stops and other police interactions.

But EFF was just frustrating and useless. Which is too bad because I had always had a lot of respect for them and the work they do. I still do, I guess... I just understand now that they have morphed into a typical lawyer-based civil rights organization. Which is good! We absolutely need those! But they lack the technical sophistication I understand they had when founded.

American AI companies 'distilled' millions of works from the original authors, they dont like it? Tough.

Yes, the manufacturer of the self-driving system. People have been asking this silly question for a decade now, even though there is no other answer. Google, at least, has stated publicly on many occasions that they are liable for the actions of their self-driving vehicles.

No, they did not. In fact they said exactly the opposite, that the cars are never remotely-piloted. They said that the cars occasionally request guidance, which means something like "Should I go this way or that way?", then the car acts on the answer.

I quit using Windows in 2000, and it's been at least a decade, if not more, since I ran into anything like that.

Dude, you're being ridiculous.

That's clearly not the intention here if the end result of passing through the luxury terminal is boarding the same airplane as those masses, and it is. It's obviously just to make the airport part of the travel experience nicer, in ways that would be too expensive to apply to the regular terminal. It's the same thing as airport lounges (I'm a Delta Sky Club member myself, a privilege I pay money for so I have the option of a nicer place to wait, the availability of hot showers on long trips, food, drinks, etc.) just scaled up to cover the whole airport process... right up to boarding time when the people get shuttled to board with everyone else.

LOL. I specifically mentioned that I use correct capitalization... so of course I screwed up the capitalization.

We can't afford to let the success of big tech companies depend on the health of fragile meatbags. We need to get resilient, fault-tolerant AGI in there running the enterprise. Also, unlike meatbags, you don't need $100M stock payouts to convince an AGI to work as a corporate executive.

Tiny, tiny minority. And if you think you want that, you're wrong!

Also, it's worth pointing out that finding matching pages in a database of pages is indeed trivial -- and building that is utterly insufficient, because for any query that trivial matching algorithm will return a huge number of pages. Thousands, even for the most obscure technical terms, millions or tens of millions for more-common words.

The hard part of building a web search engine (and it's very, very hard) is ranking the results once you've found them, so the thing the user wants is on top. That was, in fact, Google's big innovation: PageRank was Larry Page's idea for how to rank pages by examining the link structure of the web and prioritizing pages with more inbound links. That specific mechanism quickly broke down when SEO companies began exploiting its structure, but in addition to being gameable, PageRank had another problem: What if the search terms are used in multiple domains? The classic example is the query "python spacing". Am I looking for information about how large an enclosure I need for a captive python, or am I asking about indentation in programming?

So Google, and every other competent search engine, has shifted towards supporting queries in natural language, as well as using contextual information when available, such as the user's search history -- in the "python spacing" example, unless the user is a zookeeper who also writes code, their search history will point to the correct domain.

If you're writing queries as lists of terms that you want matched in pages you're doing it wrong. You'd actually be unhappy with a search engine that gave you exactly that, and you're also artificially reducing the effectiveness of the much better search engine you're using. Try typing questions instead, e.g. "How much space does a 10 foot Python need?" (correct spelling, capitalization and punctuation are not really required, but I use them anyway). This will give the engine more contextual clues about what kind of thing you're actually looking for and you'll get better results.

That said, it should be pointed out that if what you really, really want is "include only these words, exactly as I spelled them", Google will give you that. Just put them in quotation marks.

It's too bad they don't provide numbers, because the numbers are incredible. I occasionally checked the search qps numbers when I worked at Google, just for fun, and... wow. Say what you will about Google, their scale is incredible. The services work so reliably and quickly that you don't often think about what the infrastructure must be like to handle it -- and you can't achieve that kind of scale just by throwing hardware at the problem, either (though lots of hardware is required, obviously). Every layer of the stack is finely-tuned for performance, with both macro optimizations like sophisticated distributed consensus-based eventually-consistent storage and micro optimizations like libraries that squeeze maximum value out of every cycle.

Supporting tens of millions (maybe hundreds of millions now?) of queries per second against a multi-petabyte (maybe exabyte now?) database is an incredible feat of engineering, as is keeping the whole system humming along with near-perfect reliability. There are a lot of damned fine engineers at Google, and "engineer" is absolutely the right word when you're talking about global-scale infrastructure.

One of my first "Google-scale" moments was shortly after I joined in 2011. The global data center status pages had a bug, which was that the field that displayed the aggregate on-line storage (basically all spinning Rust back then, I think; the SSD transition was just about to get under way), was a Java long, a signed 64-bit integer, and it had just wrapped; Google's online storage had exceeded 2^63 bytes. That is a big number. They just updated the code to use a BigInteger instead.

In fairness, while America may lose a Nobel prize winning chemist, they'll pick up several South African Nazis.

No, but they'll record the punch, then call the police. The recording will be evidence in the subsequent prosecution for assault and battery.

All of the big tech companies incentivize their employees to write up as many patent ideas as possible, and anything that looks remotely plausible gets filed by their patent attorneys. This in no way means the company has any plans to build the thing patented.

Why do they do it then? To build up their "patent warchest". Every company knows that they're going to get sued for patent infringement, because it's just impossible not to. Hamstringing your engineers by having patent attorneys scrutinize everything they're doing to see if it happens to be somewhat close to a thing that someone else patented will drive everyone nuts and drive productivity to zero. And you definitely don't want your engineers searching the patent database themselves... if they stumble across something vaguely close to what they're building or thinking about building, then go ahead with what they were going to do anyway, it's now "willful infringement", eligible for treble damages.

Instead, companies file for patents on everything possible, mostly with no plan whatsoever to build it, so that when they get sued they can then dig through their warchest to find something vaguely related to what the plaintiff builds/does (assuming the plaintiff is a company that builds stuff; patent trolls are a separate issue and require a different strategy), then threaten a countersuit. Then the lawyers get together and craft a cross-licensing agreement, which rarely includes any money changing hands or anyone changing what they're building and selling.

Patent filings like this one aren't news, they're noise, and /.'s editors should know better.

They've already dealt with this. If you read the fine print on these agreements, many or most of the recent ones say that the company has the option of rolling up any "substantially similar" arbitration cases into a single mass arbitration. (Which as usual, is decided by a person whose paycheck ultimately depends on the business of that same company.)

Sorry. When you signed up for that discount card a few years ago, you agreed to individual binding arbitration only.