Have to keep in mind that to a lot of folks it's almost 'bitcoin === cryptocurrency', where anything cryptocurrency must be bitcoin related. Not just this field, but investing in general.

Companies have gotten big boosts just by having a similar symbol to something in the news that they had nothing to do with.

The US version of HIGNFY is not a patch on the BBC version.

I think the real shift began when computer processing power became great enough to make it feasible to analyze public video footage and index it for long-term storage. The idea you don't have an expectation of privacy in public always made sense to me. But it was intended to protect the rights of photographers and videographers, primarily. (You should be able to take a photo of your friend or family member in public, while random strangers mill about behind them, and not risk them filing a lawsuit against you for it.) If someone can see you and what you're wearing or doing in public, with the naked eye? Then they should be able to photograph it too. If you didn't want that to happen, then you shouldn't have gone out in public wearing or doing whatever it was.

Until recently though? Nobody thought photos or videos were providing people with any capabilities beyond keeping the captured content for a fairly long period of time and them having ability to view them or show them to others they knew, at will.

Now, it all extends to that captured information getting automatically data-mined/processed. Numerous aspects could be resold to interested parties, for all sorts of uses the subject of the photo or video never even imagined. Even the location and time can become part of a bigger goal of tracking one's travel habits. And contrary to what used to take place, a person being captured on video or photo is part of whole networks of cameras doing the data collection all over the geographic area. This is no longer about, say, the shop owner who wants to record his customers at the counter for security reasons. Now, that shop owner might buy a networked camera system for that purpose ... but the info the camera captures goes into a "collective", well outside the shop owner's control.

I want to agree with you, and appreciate the spin of a 'safety standards committe'.

However, they could make the argument that an agreement to 'slow down' at current prices, means an agreement to keep prices high rather than someone developing an advancement to make it cheaper.

That said, it's completely counter to the trend where they have been making it more and more expensive, and doesn't seem to be interest in more competitive pricing anyway.

We won't have 'our' side under any better control than the other side. Essentially kids playing with landmines, triggering all sorts of unexpected mess while playing with the technology.

I don't even know if you want to consider the likely ones calling the shots 'our' side. For example, a quote from Larry Ellison on AI augmented surveillance:
“Citizens will be on their best behavior, because we’re constantly recording and reporting everything that is going on."

Note the pronoun choices, *their* best behavior (not *our* best behavior) because *we're* constantly recording. Clearly his natural go to language has already set up an 'us versus them' scenario that puts the average citizen on the 'other side' compared to wherever Larry is sitting.

What's worse is that it came up at a time when everything else is hitting economic headwinds. It has become the one shaky pillar vaguely holding up the entire stock market. Hence Trump's panic over the only saving grace of his remaining decent economic indicator being put at risk.

The theory seems to be about the coordination. You can't sue that McDonald's refused to use some better ingredient, but if all the burger joints jointly announced they were all working together to refrain from using that ingredient, then you might have something.

This is precisely why they needed the governmental regulation they asked for, when they 'self-regulate', it can come off as anti-competitive.

Of course, plenty of examples of industries collaborating, they just generally need some spin that has it as a collaboration to improve the industry in some way. So here the pitch could be that they are collaborating to improve safety, and the 'slowing down' is a natural consequence of the improved safety.

Exactly this.
I bought a PS3 because it advertised both the ability to play games *and* the ability to run linux.
Some time later i was forced to make a choice between continuing to run linux by retaining the old firmware and not being able to play online or play newer games, or update the firmware to play those games while losing the ability to run linux (and losing access to any data in the linux partition too). I have not bought another sony product since then.

Exactly. Most of us can recall an era where script kiddies had similar unreasonable success even if they had no actual skill or thinking behind the attacks. Just canned toolkits designed around known vulnerabilities, common password databases, understanding of common, bad security practices, and bundled up in easy to use harnesses.

So whether it not an agent can actually "think" or is just putting together a potentially workable narrative of how hacks can happen and running it against real world targets doesn't matter too much. If you wired up the script of Terminator to the real world and it somehow launched nukes, it wasn't that skynet was thinking, it was that the systems folded easily to a movie script. Either way the distinction would hardly matter.

To the extent lack of thought may matter, compromising security is a use case that heavily favors AI systems that repeatedly "get it wrong", as it can have nearly limitless tries to get it right and even if it utterly fails, no one will really notice or write about it. It only takes a few successes, even if rare, to be pretty critical.

I think it misses an important point about the seals. The seals are designed to work with a higher pressure outside the sub. With a pressure differential in the opposite direction, I suspect that they might leak a lot.

It would be a LOT better off if the war had gone to plan and the IRGC had been toppled quickly. But wars rarely go to plan, and there is often short term pain as the war is fought.

Britain and France declared war on Germany in September 1939, a year later in 1940 you could have legitimately asked the same question - how is the world better off now than it was before? It was much worse for Britain and France at that point.

Looking back now it's obvious how much better off the world is, but in 1940 many people in occupied paris or bomb ravaged london would have thought differently.

You don't get rid of an entrenched abhorrent regime over night, and the longer they're allowed to exist the stronger and more entrenched they become.

Well first gen tech might not work very well, but the idea is good and will be refined over time.

It could also just be that this guy isn't familiar with how to use the functionality of the glasses yet.

It being pitch black would be beneficial to someone who was blind, it would not only level the playing field but actually tilt it in their favor as they would have much more experience operating without sight.

Why? The camera is not hidden, the meta glasses are branded and widely advertised, Most will recognize the meta glasses too or people wouldn't even be talking about it.

You don't need a camera to transcribe speech. They would be more useful for blind people whereby the camera takes a picture of what's in front of you and describes it audibly.