No, in this case, the real problem is that most employees would expect a superbowl ring to come from a third party vendor. And as such, they'd expect the domain name to be a third party domain name.

These gotcha games suck, but they're necessary. And it's not just email, it's phone calls, it's social engineering, it's fake paper invoices, it's fake AI voices, it's deep fake live videos, etc.

And yes, automate your defenses, automate as much as possible, but that's not enough. Every day, there is a new scam out there, or a new vector of attack, that automation doesn't take into account yet. It's a never-ending list of problems that requires never-ending education.

And yes, let's not make fun of people, but let's assume that people are going to make mistakes (even after having been trained), so let's continue to do penetration testing (in addition to all the other precautions we take and all the defensive automation we create).

Yes, enforcement can take place *after* a police report has been made. Because if a crime has been committed, there is a process to follow and there is a criminal to catch.

After all, if a hidden camera is found, it could have been planted there by a host, or by an employee, or by a contractor, or by a previous guest, or may be the camera could have been planted by someone trying to make a fake allegation (for instance a local competitor, or a guest who's trying to extort the host)

Who knows? It's the same thing with hotels. Hotel rooms have been found with hidden cameras in them also. If you find a hidden camera in your hotel room, you do not contact their headquarters first, you do not tell the front desk first, you contact the police first! The police can secure the evidence. The police can record what happened. The police can even try to catch the perpetrator.

Secret recordings should be a police issue, not an AirBnB one. It's not like AirBnB can inspect a location like the police can. And it's not like AirBnB can prosecute a case. This is a matter for the local justice system.

Or am I missing something?

Yeah, this is really weird.

If I had a colleague who was accused of that, I wouldn't be drafting any letter of support unless some higher ups were forcing my hand.

First, I'd paste it into notepad just to make sure.

The Meta Rayban glasses have a light when it's active. Now granted, many people do pay a mobile repair person to permanently disable that light. But personally, I think the people that do not disable that light shouldn't be penalized. And for that reason, I think the law is badly written.

They're not banning AI generated writing, they're banning unverified content.

Go ahead. Do it then. The second queue already exists anyway. It's called a blog. Anyone can create one. And no one can prevent you from publishing to it, or from archiving those blogs permanently.

A single user can use AI to generate terabytes of unverified claims every single day. At some point, something has to give. Even with blogs, search engines will have to be judicious about what's worth indexing and what is just unverified noise.

The claim that "false premises invalidate everything built on them" only holds when the error is unrecoverable and propagates non-linearly.

But in many cases:

The error is consistent and quantifiable, so results can be recalibrated

The relational findings survive even if absolute values shift

The direction of effect holds even if the magnitude is off

A good counterexample of this is carbon dating. Early carbon dating used an assumed atmospheric C-14 ratio that turned out to be slightly wrong. The premise was false, but scientists didn't throw out decades of dating results. Instead, they developed calibration curves (using tree rings, coral, etc.) to correct the systematic offset.

No, Saleforce degraded their service as soon as they took over. It's been a slow death ever since.

If Salesforce is not extracting a pound of flesh every year from each customer they have, they're not happy.

Yes, but when when you tell a scientist to uproot their entire life from DC and move to Kansas or to the middle of nowhere. And that even if they move, that the future of their agency is pretty much over, or at least put on life support.

That could be considered a form of constructive dismissal (even if they call it just "quitting").

The project was doomed to fail from the very beginning.

Apple is too privacy focused. To make AI competitive, you have to be willing to share private data with it.

Right now, Gemini Live on Android sucks terribly, but I am more hopeful for it..

I'm not the original poster.

Nexperia, I don't know. But the US did have issues with China having access to the technology from its Dutch sister company ASML.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

So it's not far-fetched to think that the US has something to do with this issue with Nexperia as well.

That couldn't possibly happen!

Foreign companies (Tesla excepted) are not allowed to own more than 49% of Chinese-based companies/joint ventures.

To be fair, (with the exception of Tesla), foreign companies are not allowed to own more than 49% of Chinese companies.

So if international law was truly applicable, then there would be parity between nations about foreign majority ownership.