They're things you find in a place called a liiiiiii-brary.

In the worst case, they'll add interior walls (and maybe add some windows to the exterior walls), and resell it as office space, residential space, factory space, retail distribution space, or even a community library. After all, floors built to support racks of equipment should handle the weight and distribution of stacks of books without breaking a sweat.

So the construction might be overkill for what they eventually get used for, but it's not like a newly built, solid building isn't going to find a use. Maybe a quarter of the effort is wasted? Just guessing.

The first sentence says that many AI bugs are "low-quality and sometimes entirely fabricated vulnerabilities generated by AI". It is unlikely that fabricated vulnerabilities will affect an OS.

Potential power generation does not mean solar and wind farms magically appear overnight. Infrastructure like transmission lines also do not appear out of nowhere. You're also talking about deep red Texas which cares little about regulation. The problem is not Abbott is against any data centers forever. The problem is even in Texas, the infrastructure is struggling to cope right now.

The main impact of prop 19 is making it possible for the elderly to not be forced to move to another state if they decide to downgrade to a smaller home. It likely has minimal impact on people's ability to move closer to their jobs, because it is limited to people 55 and older, so less than a quarter of California's workforce qualifies for transferring the cost basis to a new property.

More to the point, the people most likely to change jobs are younger workers, and none of them qualify.

As for Modoc to Beverly Hills, the difference in market value is added to your assessment. So if you bought a $50,000 home in the middle of nowhere that has appreciated to $300,000, and you trade up to a $3 million home, your new tax basis value is $2.75 million ($3 million minus $300k plus $50k). So it really doesn't make much difference in that case, practically speaking.

And that's when the corporate systems are configured to warn if you try to share something with or from the wrong account, and you shame the user into doing it right. Besides, this is usually only a problem for brand new users. Once you have a bunch of files uploaded to both accounts, you're not going to suddenly see the files from your personal account, and think, "Oh, this is where my work stuff goes".

It's only confusing if you have access to the same files from both accounts. And then, yeah, you'll get confused about which account is editing the file, but it's not as if it really matters in that situation.

I didn't think EA could get any worse.

And now, by suing a bunch of former employees, they're giving employees who might be thinking about jumping ship a reason to pause. Whether Apple wins or loses the lawsuit, Apple wins.

They know what they are doing. The UK government has never believed in privacy rights. They know they're doing a disservice to everyone. They don't care.

And the only rational answer is to cut them off. No more iCloud storage for anyone residing in the UK. And for anyone else, immediate denial of access from the minute you set foot in that country to the minute you leave. This is the only reasonable option.

And ultimately, this is the reason why Cloud storage shouldn't even exist. The minute you depend on someone else for storage, you can't completely 100% guarantee that your data is not in someone else's hands. If you store it on hardware you own, not built by the company that sold the backup software, then people will be able to verify that data is getting pushed to only a single destination, and if they started cheating and sending it to two different services, folks would likely notice. It's not perfect, but it makes back doors a lot harder to pull off without detection.

We need Time Machine for iOS, backing up over encrypted SMB to servers on our home network that we control. Fix that gap, and none of this matters anymore.

Apple uses 256 bit AES from what I remember. Theoretically using a single computer, it would take 10^59 years to crack a single key. Using all world’s computers including supercomputers, it will be less but not meaningfully less.

Yes, UK government wants Apple to modify their entire encryption scheme so that Apple can grant the UK government access to user data anytime that government asks. Existing data is protected unless Apple is forced to replace existing keys.

Exactly - And there is the interesting part. The typical angry response does not allow for any deviation from the idea that people who work from home are the most competent, most productive employees who will have the world beating a path to their door.

Yes this is true. There are of course some good remote jobs, but not enough. The first part is obviously true. So why not the second part? Well it must be an army of incompetents and quislings like you and I not just standing in their way but actively fighting them.

Certainly some people do work better alone.

It's certainly true that some people can work better alone. And it's also true that some people can figure out what the right thing to work on better alone. The intersection isn't close to 100% though, and I think quite a lot of people can end up working effectively on a task that's not especially important. It's the useless interruptions which can let you know what the important problems are.

Another thing is despite what appears to be the norm on Slashdot, most people need a bit of actual humanity around them. Or perhaps most people are cowed into silence by their histrionics if some dares to disagree. But humans are by and large social creatures. Introversion is not the norm. Nothing wrong with introversion, but there seems to be a conscious effort to force on others these days.

Also introversion isn't absolute in most people.

Finally, a person who wants to slack off ie, a lazy person - will have a marked tendency to love WFH. Just sayin'!

Yeah, and not just that. I've noticed a tendency among a certain sort of programmer to also convince themselves that say upgrading from yesterday's must have web framework to today's must have web framework (while incidentally learning all about today's must have web framework) is really really really important actually so guess what gets done on the WFH days? The big boss is in an idiot you see and doesn't understand the pressing need to update a working, relatively bug free and lightly used end point. So they might be working effectively in as much as writing company code, but not usefully.

Also slackers. Slackers love WFH.

Yes, some people have the need to make shit up

This comes back to your first point about the presumed superiority. Providing counterexamples attacks their presumed superiority so it is equivalent ot a deeply personal attack. So you get the kind of response as if you've insulted their mum or whatever.

That hasn't been my experience

No one EVER replies as quickly by text (I'm guilty too). The in person-ness does some effective filtering. Person not there? Well, wait. Person busy? You may be able to judge if your needs are higher priority and they better be if you interrupt. Every text system I've had always gets a high proportion of near spam which necessitates mental filtering which stop instant responses often.

What you describe sounds a little like that.

Yeah could be. I wouldn't class myself as either introvert or extrovert. I can do and enjoy people stuff but it does completely knacker me after a while.

Not sure anyone is having to provide an incentive. While in small quantities, old models of Chromebook might cost as little as $200 on sale, chances are good that schools are spending more like $400 to $500 on average for their devices.

At just $600 for the Neo (the current educational price), the cost difference is minimal now. And if your teachers are already using Macs, that's one fewer platform to support. And if the hardware lasts longer (to be determined), then that could easily make up the remaining cost difference.

It really isn't complex. Google does it just fine. You have an account picker in the upper right corner, and you choose which account you're using to interact with that app. No big deal.

Having a mechanism to use one account for music and a different one for app stores? Now that's complex. That's adding special-casing for each app that needs to handle a separate account, instead of designing the auth system correctly to support multiple accounts to begin with. It's almost always easier to do it right than to add a bunch of special-case workarounds everywhere.

I also disagree with the claim that 99.9% of users only have one iCloud account — not because it isn't currently true, but because it is true only tautologically. If the system is designed so that no person can meaningfully use more than one account, then no one is ever going to create or attempt to use more than one account. What this means is that no businesses will ever use iCloud accounts for their internal messaging system, etc. Apple is basically shutting themselves out of the business ecosystem altogether by design.

They've designed the system in a way that makes what you're saying true, so of course it is true. But that doesn't mean that 99.9% of users would not *benefit* from it not being true. In an ideal world, iCloud would compete head-to-head with things like Office 365. They have the tech, but limiting it in ways that make it useless for business purposes means they aren't actually competing.

Every screener I saw was back in the day of DVDs. A friend of mine worked for a video rental place and they got screeners a once in a while. Most of them were B movies that may have not been released so it was not as if we got to see blockbusters early or for free.

The root cause comes from these twelve words:

Authentication systems that allow only a single signed-in account are defective by design. Approximately 100% of all people have more than one account that they need to be signed in with.

I have half a dozen Google accounts for specific purposes — one for work, one for personal, one for electronic music tablets to which multiple people share physical access, a couple of old domain-specific accounts that got converted from free work profiles, and I'm probably forgetting some. Not all of these are useful, but if I could not have continuous access to work and personal, it would be a tremendous pain in the backside.

And encouraging people to merge profiles like that is nuts. It all but guarantees leaks. A confidentiality agreement typically protects things you learned in the scope of your employment, but after you are employed, if they continue to send you confidential information, there's a decent chance that you aren't under any legal obligation to keep that secret.

This is just a really bad way to do things, driven by a fundamental flaw in their architecture. And it doesn't just cause problems for Apple. It causes problems for their customers as well. I can't have a separate iCloud account for my work. I have to use a Google account. And more than that, when I hit the maximum number of AirTag devices (which I'm about to reach), I can't add additional iCloud accounts. I'm hard-capped at a single account.

While we're at it, the limitation of a single user per iPad stems from the same defective design process. All of those sorts of 1:1 mapping decisions between accounts, users, and devices need to be fundamentally rethought, because they were always a mistake. Maybe now that Apple is being bitten by it, they'll finally do the things that users have been asking them to do for the last decade. Bonus points if they lose their lawsuit because of a lack of a modicum of care on their part, because that just might be enough to wake the sleeping giant and get them to fix this mess.