I am sure a company like Jaguar has cybersecurity insurance. This service comes in many variations - it can cover direct costs of handling the incident (eg extra hours logged by your employees), third party costs (eg additional anti-ddos services purchased to mitigate the attack), post-incident cleanup costs, ransomware payments...

Would Jaguar file an insurance claim? Based on which policy? Would they get a payout? For what?

Would be insightful to learn about this, after the dust has settled.

"Acceleration is expanding" does not make sense.
Perhaps the expansion rate is accelerating?

I am an astrophysicist by education (although removed from science since I graduated long time ago), and the article as cited on Slashdot makes no sense to me. Is this just a small step in the understanding of dark energy and its impacts? Something totally new? A breakthrough of some sort? "We are in the process of getting new data and publishing more papers." Why is this news?

At the beginning of the war I hoped that all US software would stop working in Russia. Not just clouds but all Windows devices, Apple, Android could have been bricked at a snap. The war would have ended very fast. (Granted, Russia can make things work again, but it would take time and lots of engineering effort.)

I was so naive.

Five-day outage is in a domain of business continuity.

Deleting data - happens.
Did they have backups?
Did they have recovery plans and procedures?
Had they tested them?
What failed?

I have friends working as seamen both in the Baltic sea and at oceans. They say that the maritime community has no doubt whatsoever about the recent incidents. The only explanation is sabotage. It would be technically impossible to randomly damage the cables.

The explanations offered by the vessels may look OK to a journalist, but any seaman from sailor to captain just would not take it.

If you train your AI to persuade people to belive in conspiracies - does it work?

And does it work better than human propaganda channels?

In either way, the owners / trainers / operators of our new AI overlords yield horrible power.

It was more like managers at Redmond did not understand nor trust this "peer to peer thing" that was engineered by some hackers in Eastern Europe. Thus they wanted to replace it with a normal, server-based, invented-and-implemented in Redmond tech. Took them a few tries but the finally succeeded, and then failed again.

I don't think US government had much influence over that, just the standard Microsoft "not invented here" syndrome.

ESA is doing clean-up work for NASA, and EU is demoted to a role of a space janitor.

BSI is Germany. It largely disregards Brussels and does things on its own. Especially so on matters that relate to the national security of Germany. Their view on EU Commission is something of "bureaucratic clowns that we fund and tolerate, but can also ignore at will".

So there is no "mind" to be made up here. Europe or EU is not a single organization. It also has no reason or incentive to have a common opinion on issues like that.

BSI has serious influence over big cloud providers, so don't underestimate it. The current initative is probably a public policy stunt more than a real plan though.

This seems to be the Spanish implementation of EU eIDAS 2 digitial wallet standard.

eIDAS is an EU trust services framework. The first version is 10 years old now, and it failed miserably. There was no use cases for it, and Google / Facebook owned the identity management market with their simple OAuth based login.

Now EU is trying again... and harder.

So I drive a Russian car in US that connects to its Russian manufacturer for telemetry, updates and possibly remote control.
Or I drive a Chinese car in Israel.

Should US and all other countries firewall the connections from the cars to the OEM-s?
To be able to see the telemetry, block potential malicious updates, cut them off in case of problems?

I cannot see why the current situation is OK in any way.
"The cars driving on our roads are connected to their manufacturers, which may be under the control of enemy governments or malicious groups".

She still exists, as gods are immortal, right?
Thus she does own the copyright on anything "artemis".

NASA will soon get a "cease and desist" letter from Olympus. Or maybe the Gods will send an army of cyclops and titans to maul Cape Canaveral, or to grab the offending vehicle from space.

Or fry it with microwave?

Will the device check itself to be sure it is flashing / lit when recording?

How does it react if it detects the wearer blocking the signalling light?

Open your favourite book of fiction. Is it crime? People kill each other. History? People kill each other by millions, destroy countries and take slaves. Romcom? People cheat and cuckold. The storyline in any prose is illegal behaviour of some kind.
Watch news. War here, war there (read: people killing each others). School shootings. Financial crime and feud. Celebrities having affairs (which used to be crime and still are in some countries).

Most content that mankind has generated or keeps generating is about crime, war, or unethical / illegal behaviour of some kind. Otherwise it would not be news or art.

The argument "we should not allow computer-generated cp because it induces wrongful behaviour" could expanded to pretty much anything.

The same topic applies to hand-drawn cp and cp fiction. If an artist writes about or draws minors having sex - is this crime? Is the content criminal? Are people reading / viewing it criminals? To what extent? Why?

I also disagree. I am part of a small community doing it. Some may look at AI / LLM-s out of curiosity, but most people want to pick their own brains, learn about new algorithms or modules, etc.

My own knowledge about Python regexp is much much better after the first three days in 2023 (I am not a programmer by profession). Positive and negative lookaheads, yay!