Comment Re:Really should be honoring Woz Instead! (Score 1) 79
The iPhone put the Apple brand in half the world's pockets after all.
I would say that the iPod did that at least a few years before.
The iPhone put the Apple brand in half the world's pockets after all.
I would say that the iPod did that at least a few years before.
The trouble is "keeping politics out" isn't really a thing, because politics more or less supersedes everything, ultimately.
I think that's a relatively recent development (in the US, anyways).
Prior to the past few decades Democrats and Republicans were parts of the same communities: they'd go the same churches, shop in the same grocery stores, watched the same TV shows, maybe played disc golf at the same courses. Recently that has measurably changed (with the exception of the disc golf situation where there probably isn't data to substantiate the argument). The amount of overlap between Republicans and Democrats in the factors that broadly constitute "identity" has fallen off a cliff.
If this sounds like an interesting discussion, highly recommend the "Liliana Mason on Polarization and Political Psychology" episode of Sean Caroll's Mindscape podcast.
So... your recommendation would be the "make no meaningful impact on global hydrocarbon usage, and leave their people worse off in the process" approach?
You're probably the sort of person who'd see nothing wrong with a doctor telling someone to stop smoking for their health while sitting behind his desk puffing away.
The flaw in this analogy is that the doctor could stop smoking and improve their health in the exact same way that they're encouraging their patient to do. The Norwegians can't stop pumping oil and have any meaningful positive environmental impact. But regardless, I think professionally duty requires that even a chain-smoking doctor advise that their patients quit smoking.
Well done on completely missing the point. Its no different in principle to a group promoting healthy eating yet making its money selling burgers and doughnuts down the road.
There's some hypocrisy but I'm not sure what path you're suggesting here. Should Norway stop pumping gas/oil so that people go buy it from Saudi/Iran/Russia/USA/Venezuela instead? They'd make no meaningful impact on global hydrocarbon usage, and leave their people worse off in the process.
Maybe we need a reasonable tariff on them (say 50%) and start allowing them in since there's nothing here to fill that part of the market anyway.
Doesn't seem far off. The EU levies tariffs on Chinese EV makers as high as ~45% based on their calculations of the degree to which the price is unfairly subsidized, plus a preexisting 10% tariff on all car imports.
There was some validity to this sort of argument when their base models came with 8 GB of memory and 128/256 GB of storage. That was always pretty borderline and you needed to factor in ~$400 on top of the base price to get it to a reasonable spot.
These have 16 GB memory and 512 GB storage. That's plenty for a large portion of the market.
Weren't these breaches achieved by stealing auth tokens from the AWS environment of a non-Salesforce third party? Seems unfair to call this a "Salesforce vulnerability".
How the Salesforce breaches unfolded: root causes identified
The article isn't clear on the proportion, but some of these products were pulled for not having FCC authorization confirming they operate within allowed radio frequency limits. The RF spectrum is a limited, shared resource and someone operating a noisy device is everyone's problem. It goes beyond just "buyer beware".
I'm agnostic on whether it's reasonable to bar products from certain companies on much vaguer national security grounds.
So insulting to call it "gross negligence". This took years of deliberate effort.
That's exactly what "gross negligence" means. It describes cases where someone exhibits a conscious and voluntary disregard for the need to take reasonable care, in a way that's likely to cause foreseeable harm.
That doesn't comport with other language in the document. Article 10.6:
Where a provider detects potential online child sexual abuse through the measures taken to execute the detection order, it shall inform the users concerned without undue delay, after Europol or the national law enforcement authority of a Member State that received the report pursuant to Article 48 has confirmed that the information to the users would not interfere with activities for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of child sexual abuse offences.
So, when "measures taken to execute the detection order" (i.e., chat scanning technology) detect CSAM, the service provider needs to get in touch with Europol with their official report (including content, as referenced in section 12).
They also go into more details on the ways in which a provider may "become aware" of CSAM on their platform:
Therefore, [providers of publicly available interpersonal communications services] should be required to report on potential
online child sexual abuse on their services, whenever they become aware of it
Where a "detection order" is the way in which the EU will mandate that a service provider deploy the chat scanning detection technologies. It seems clear that the legislation's intent is that the detection technologies alert the service provider of the spread of CSAM so that they can inform the authorities - not just to block it from being sent.
It does not send anything anywhere. Show us your citation for this claim that the authorities will be sent blocked images and URLs.
Article 12.1 - Reporting Obligations:
Where a provider of hosting services or a provider of interpersonal communications services becomes aware in any manner
Article 13.1 - Specific requirements for reporting:
Providers of hosting services and providers of interpersonal communications services shall submit the report referred to in Article 12 using the template set out in Annex III. The report shall include:
...
(c) all content data, including images, videos and text;
...
I'm not a lawyer, and would be happy to be corrected by one, but that sure reads like they have to send the blocked content to the authorities.
Sounds like a bunch of sugar coated bullshit to me.
"We routinely monitor mentions of Cardiff blah blah blah customer engagement blah blah not unique etc
What is there to "see through"? I'd be shocked if any organization large enough to have a PR/marketing department didn't have an automated search set up on Facebook, Twitter, and Google looking for mentions of their own name.
"The greatest warriors are the ones who fight for peace." -- Holly Near