Maybe a bug in reading an obscure 1995 file format doesn't deserve a 90-day countdown clock since it impacts such a small number of people. That seems like the problem to me, an automated process run amok outside of its original assumptions.

No, even a "trained" person is not allowed to just reproduce copyrighted works and get paid for it, even as a mishmash. And that's not even getting into the degree to which the "AI" might just be a glorified index and storage system, which means it really does have a copy of the copyrighted work in it and therefore the model weights themselves are a derivative work.

I think there should be no question that a semi-arbitrary algorithm optimized to reproduce a dataset under certain operations is a derivative work of that dataset. Full stop. A model is a derivative work of the training data. Anything else is just a misunderstanding of how the technology works and makes no sense. Yes, OpenAI's business is basically built on intentionally pushing this misunderstanding. There is an indexing exception to copyright, but for what we are currently calling "AI", indexing and storage are inseparable, so this exception should not apply. Anything else just makes AI a copyright washing machine and copyright basically ceases to exist.

I think you are missing that New Glenn is a heavy lift rocket and it works. For any other vendor except SpaceX, a successful first launch to orbit with another one coming up within less than a year (next week) is clear success. (SpaceX was doing that with landing and reuse on the months timescale, but there was a bit of a stumble on that earlier this year.) And Blue Origin at least seems to have a shot at making New Glenn reusable, again the only competition for SpaceX. With Starship and New Glenn in operation, two reusable heavy lift rockets, the space industry will completely change. This is why the comments referenced in the summary appear so out of touch. The entire structure of how things are planned and executed in space is about to change, which the existing Artemis plan accounts for. But the announcement indicates thinking about things in the old form.

Most locks exist to make it clear that unauthorized entry is B&E not just trespassing. The lock is just a nuisance, the main deterrent is the higher charge. The actual protection is the insurance.

In case anyone else is wondering, it does seem the summary is misleading at the end. The table indicates that before first unlock they can only get a small amount of data - the OS and some info about installed apps, no user data. (The summary says Pixel 9 is "supported" BFU, but that is only what cellebrite apparently calls "BFU data" not full file system (FFS).) So, as parent states, none of the Pixel devices listed are vulnerable to full access from a cold state.

Well, personal responsibility is the con the right is selling, but I think the current situation is exactly what those who fund the right want. One policy position that does address this on the right is for "Tort reform" which usually means making the owners even less accountable by protecting the owned company from financial liability. Your initial analysis was correct, if people don't want the government regulating their actions they must also give up the government protections for liability. One can advocate for more or less effective regulation compared to a chosen goal, but just advocating for "less regulation" is nonsensical, since the limited liability inherent in the existence of the company is itself a huge regulation restricting everyone.

Yeah, to be more specific "defunding police", when used by those advocating for it, meant diverting funding for police to mental health services or withdrawing funding from police departments that are regularly assaulting, maiming, or even killing the people they are supposed to be protecting. It really is just an extreme level of police reform that is advocated in particularly bad situations that do exist in some parts of the US.

Thanks for the TLDR. So presumably the iframe logic (the enclosing code being able to do some manipulations of what is displayed in the iframe) was extended to apps opening other apps. i.e. even if an app doesn't have the permission to draw over other apps, it can still do some visual effects that are allowed in iframes for apps that it opens. I would argue that this is a bad idea and not an intuitive definition of what "draw / not draw over other apps" means. So this should be changed so that no operations on the content shown by the other app is allowed. (or I might still be misunderstanding)

For this exploit, one does need to be using a malicious app. Also, I don't have any apps that open google authenticator directly from the app, and that would seem kinda weird to me anyway.

There are already plenty of news stories that appear to be just someone rephrasing the AP or some other story. i.e. "The AP has reported..." with no additional info just "summarizing" the AP story. (Rephrasing its first paragraph.) Yeah, an LLM can do that pretty much by design of the architecture. A copyright washing machine. I don't know that this was ever genuinely worthwhile human work in the first place. Now whether or not that "should" be a legal non-derivative work is a separate question.

I'm starting to suspect that slashdot itself has been taken over by an LLM tasked with AI propaganda, given the typical story selection nowadays. Maybe it is just use of LLM in screening stories leads to a certain bias in topic selection.

You seem to have what I would call a mistaken idea: that Linus will "choose" his successor. He won't. The community will. Even if he recommends someone, the community will either accept or reject them (or do both). It is entirely possible that nobody can really succeed him (because he has a genuinely unique combination of skills, motivations, and contacts), so he will effectively have no successor. The structure of the open kernel project now called Linux will change.

I think that is just reality and anyone trying to "choose" his successor in advance of it needing to happen is just getting in early on the politics of the community deciding who coordinates core kernel development after Linus steps down. If that is even still a thing and it doesn't splinter. (There is a reasonable argument to be made that it has already splintered into the distribution kernels, and what we call the core kernel is just the working space for coordination between the splinters.) I think deciding succession in advance is pretty demonstrably a waste of time, and possibly even counter-productive, since the situation is likely to change between now and when the change needs to happen. I'm glad that Linus himself seems to be aware of this.

The US has been occupying an artificial position since the end of WW2, since it was the only developed country to not be basically destroyed. We are just living through the transition to a broader world economy. And listening to racist xenophobes rage about it.

Assuming you aren't a pro-china bot or shill, you seem to have a westerner's lack of understanding of the absence of political freedom because you have always had it. Propaganda about China being 100% evil is pretty recent - mostly the west has treated China fairly nicely even when China has acted badly because the western powers at the time understood that building and sustaining relationships is more important in the long run than any individual dispute. The weird thing is now China has grown up, it complains about being treated as an equal. China seems to want to be a leader but still with all the perks of being considered a developing economy. That's not going to happen. If China wants to treat a particular market in a protectionist manner (social media, cell phones, etc) nobody should be surprised when other countries do the same against them. That is normal international trade relations, not nationalism. It's when the two get conflated that things go badly.

That is false. To quote article 2: the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" i.e. the laws passed by congress. If congress sets some rules that the SEC enforces, the president cannot change those rules (laws).

Which means that the title of the article is not even correct - there is almost no way that this is a standards-compliant disc, so it is not a "CD", as you point out. It is a non-compliant optical disc of the same size as a CD. (a NCODOTSSAACD ?)

Somewhat sadly for SpaceX I think any launch in which starship block 2 made it through its ascent burn is a step forward, and therefore "success". Certainly the transition from block 1 to block 2 for starship has been far rockier than expected, but at least it appears they have implemented a solution to the (first) major problem that destroyed two test articles in a row. Unfortunately due to other failures we still don't know if block 2 will behave similarly successfully on re-entry as block 1. That was originally supposed to be the main difference between block 1 and 2, but after 3 flights it is still untested. This continues to make Musk's blaming the government for delays seem like his insanity talking. Success seems to be limited by SpaceX's internal ability develop without excessive regression. Block 1 starship performed a successful reentry on its 4th flight. So far block 2 has done no better, and we will still have to wait to see if it even does the same. It should have taken fewer test flights to get to a reentry test, given that the booster has performed so well.