Sometimes can make you sick!

There's more to it than just 'smaller'. Cellphone OS are designed to provide a smaller attack surfaces. They provide less access (iOS provides no conventional user-visible file system) in exchange for that security.

But consider: Here an iOS vulnerability makes headlines. A new Windows vulnerability is just "meh".

I find it interesting that some here would want operating system vendors to be legally liable for security vulnerabilities? Will they also accept legal liability for bugs in their own applications? I've been calling for that for decades, but have been mostly shouted down by people who won't accept that responsibility for their own code. (When I left the job where I wrote real production code, I gave my successor a personal warranty. "If you find a bug, call, and I'll help find and fix it for free." She never called, and years later I talked to her. "No problems reported with that package", which was widely used across the application to glue the user interface to the application logic.)

Mark Gurman says a lot of stuff about Apple that turns out to be false. How will that be functionally different from AI Hallucinations about Apple?

I believe there needs to be a coherent approach to countering this. That includes legal actions, political actions, and probably actions on the ground. The core problem is coming up with and then disseminating that approach between now and early November.

Well, when the heavily armed and masked ICE agents arrive at your polling place, I hope you are ready to tell them to go away...

Some significant proportion of states, including some with potentially close elections, have governors who would probably not resist. But the interviews I've heard with state and particularly local election officials show a high degree of concern. (Of course, it's only those who are worried who would get on the radio. But there's enough of those to justify a perception those anecdotal reports represent more than just a couple outliers.)

I think Bernie sits in an economic bubble that is almost as irrational and dense as Trump's bubble. "Medicare for all" at current reimbursement rates would bankrupt much of the health care system. Our local hospital estimated 18 months. "Tax the rich" to pay for current spending would dive deep into the upper middle class and even middle class. And there's no Constitutional basis for a 'wealth tax'.

My friend (college classmate) who lives in Vermont has been railing about Bernie's inability to actually deliver meaningful results for his constituents for a long time. My friend's town was badly damaged by the floods a couple of years ago, and Bernie has delivered no relief to that town in getting the promised federal reimbursements for bridge replacements, etc.

Your "1 week" cost estimate is probably off by 2 orders of magnitude. Otherwise, I pretty much agree with you.

Apparently, some of the problems created by Trump (e.g. war with Iran, high gas prices, high prices due to tariffs, the broken promises and cover-up of the Epstein Files) is making its way through the MAGA social media bubble.

But the really REALLY scary thing is the prospect of disrupting the mid-term elections. See https://www.lawfaremedia.org/a... The risk here is not the actual success of an EO, but the chaos it would create if executed close to the election date. Courts take a long time/deliberate process to respond. I really don't know what happens if the Monday before Election Day Trump signs this order, and then mobilizes federal resources (DHS's ICE private police, even federalizing the National Guard) to "protect" polling places and to "secure" ballot boxes.

A couple things to consider on that:

• Once again the percentage of eligible voters who bothered to vote at all in the presidential election was small
• As in the other elections where Trump ran, many people were casting votes against someone as much as they were casting them for someone. In 2016 Trump won largely because of the avalanche of anti-Clinton sentiment that came from Republican regulars who very much did not agree with his platform. In 2020 Biden won in no small part in response to the disaster that Trump created in his first term. Then in 2024 the quick switch that the democrats pulled to change their endorsed candidate caused a large number of otherwise reliable democrats to not bother showing up at all.

  I would much rather go nearly anywhere in Europe.

  If we were to go back to the topic of the IgNobels themselves it would be interesting to know how many people actually traveled internationally the last several years to attend in person. I've read about them regularly but never considered going in person; I'm not sure I even knew before reading this that they were previously hosted in the US.

That might depend on how widely we define "arena rock". Yeah there aren't a lot of "rock" acts - by the traditional definition - that are selling out huge stadiums but there are plenty of other acts that are. Between various pop princesses, nostalgic rockers from the past, comedians, and even politicians we have plenty of non-sporting events selling out the hockey, basketball, baseball, and football arenas.

That said, while the tours pay the artists better than media / streaming revenue - and by a huge margin - the artists get but a small fraction of the ticket price. Prices keep going up, and at some point the fans won't pay it. Ticketmaster doesn't seem to have a plan for this, they seem to exist in an alternative reality where all fans have unlimited funds to see their favorite artists.

Of course it's well known how much money some artists make through their tours. People are willing to pay the price to see them, so good for those artists.

However, at what point will it no longer work? At some point the prices will be too high to sell out arenas. Big acts have been able to demand $1,000 or more for the best seats at giant arenas. Like so many others I can't name a single act that is active currently that I would pay anywhere near that much to see. If prices - and fees - keep going up the number of people in my camp will increase. Maybe the premium experience will be enough to offset that, but at some point demand side economics will take over.

If I can buy every single album, LP, single, and special edition an artist has ever released for less than 1/4 of what a ticket goes for - or for that matter less than just the fees for a ticket - the system seems a bit broken. Sure the live experience is different but is it worth that much?

One is in Northern District of California: https://www.courtlistener.com/... This is probably the main event. There's an initial complaint and then a request for Temporary Restraining Order.

The other action is in the DC Circuit: https://www.courtlistener.com/... IANAL, but I think it's here because of requirements around disputes that could go to the Court of Claims but that have Constitutional or other non-contractual aspects vector directly to the DC Circuit.

It's always worth finding the docket and reading the complaint, the response, the various legal briefs (and amici briefs) and then the decision. Don't depend on others to summarize this for you, I often find a lot of nuance in there that the brief news summaries miss. (I also find A LOT of bullshit arguments, and legal mumbo-jumbo, but the more of these you read, the easier it gets.)

p.s. It's not officially the Department of War until CONGRESS changes the name.

And has suddenly discovered "principles"? OK...

Will there be an ejection option on each seat as part of the flight attendant controls?

So it's OK to sign a contract, then decide the contract is 'morally unacceptable" and break it? Sweeney can decide it's "morally unacceptable" to not criticize Google next year. And then if Google goes to enforce that contract, Sweeney will sue Google...

Not much, after Sweeney tried to slip a version of Fortnite that deliberately broke the contract Fortnight signed with Apple. (Independent of the merits of the Apple/Epic case, that was definitely a dick move by Sweeney.)