Apple's iMessages are E2E encrypted. Only the sender and recipient have they keys to decrypt the messages on device; Apple does not. The new Siri search is run on device also.

It doesn't matter. What matters is the politicians "did something" and the companies followed the law, so everyone is blameless.

FYI: Apple discontinued their Time Capsule in 2018 without replacement.

Yes because no CEO would want to add new features or fix more bugs per unit time with the same number of programmers; they and their customers are happy with the same rate of progress with fewer programmers.

AI is being used as a convenient scapegoat. If a few big tech companies do layoffs, more do because it's a case of monkey see, monkey do.

I was hoping to find out whether this is a viable business model for new startups, but they only ruled that it took too long for Musk to bring the lawsuit.

Even if training is legal (and I don't concede it is), you still have to have a legally authorized copy to train from to begin with. Unless Meta paid for every book they trained their AI from, they're already guilty of copyright infringement.

Acting - as part of "the arts" - is more play than work for the people who do it. That merits not automating it because without enjoyable things to do, we become nothing but consumption machines.

Why should the movie studio executives, board of directors, or shareholders care? To them, it's a business to maximize profit. You can do that if using AI costs less than paying actors.

Woz, despite his technical chops, had no influence after the Apple ][ days, so while he was initially influential, he hasn't been influential over most of Apple's history.

What if nobody implemented it?

Then Microsoft and Apple among others would be fined per day until they implemented it; or perhaps even being held in contempt of court if the government sued them and won up to and including jail time for executives; or given the current regime, being designated a supply chain risk.

Even if the companies eventually prevail in court, most wouldn't want the hassle or being on the bad side of Orange Man.

I know. My point is that all the site should guarantee to the advertiser is transmission of the ad. What happens to it once it reaches my browser should be irrelevant.

There are sites I like and do not block ads because I want them to be around, and in the end they either need to paywall or run ads to stay in business.

But the company whose ad it is has already paid to be shown on the site, hasn't it? Why should they care whether I choose to block ads via my browser? I'm never going to click on any as anyway.

Before emissions controls, they'd try to disperse soot and ash over wide area to minimize the impact to individuals, but natural gas burns a lot cleaner than coal, and doesn't really produce soot or ash, so it's not really a concern.

The only thing that article says about it is that the local government did a study and concluded that it wasn't an environmental hazard.

Think about it this way: why would a gas turbine mounted on a trailer emit more pollution than a fixed facility? It's burning the same fuel, with the same emissions controls.

Ok, but we should still be able to add that to the grid. In reality, it is much easier and cheaper to build a 1GW power plant than it is to build a 1GW datacenter.

2GW is basically nothing. The entire grid is something like 1,200GW so you'd need to add a fraction of a percent to cover a very large data center. The fact that people claim this is beyond our capability is preposterous.