The problem with Axon cameras is that they have off buttons. The person who that camera is recording most - ie the person WEARING the camera - should NOT be able to turn off that camera, at most they should be able to mark up to 90 seconds of upcoming footage at a time as private for bathroom visits (they can press it again every minute or so, and if they end up lying about it and using it to do something illegal, the footage can still be reviewed later.)

Axon cameras are mostly useless because of all the nefarious things they DON'T catch their wearers doing because their wearers can just press a button and turn the useless things off. They were supposed to be there to protect the public, but law enforcement easily can and do abuse their power to turn them off all the time, and we have no way of knowing what goes on when those cameras go off.

I retract what I said about healthcare, that needs exactly one single payer only - health insurance is a scam we have to be done with. As far as service providers, there should be many, but maybe not competing ones, that hasnâ(TM)t exactly driven down prices.

If we ever again have even remotely sane management, it will be time for the U.S. to break up that industry into at least a dozen actual competitors. Also healthcare. And a lot of others.

Yeah, the company that killed VMWare is in no position to be deciding which open source software is acceptable and which is not. They'll probably (in time) require a payment for a positive review - and pretend to cover their asses by requiring payment for a review at all, but out of the theoretical kindness of their hearts, they'll do free reviews that all just happen to come out negative. Anyone who walks into this trap after knowing what they did to VMWare gets what they deserve.

Not from inside of vior dire

It's obvious we need new physical media that is cheaper than thumb drives. Someone invent a better solution for dirt cheap write-once media, there's a huge market for it as long as the data lasts.

That's probably a dramatic underestimate.I would have guessed more like 92%

Once they do that, click activity will increase exponentially and they won't be able to afford to keep it up

No. Everyone won't. It's frankly a ton of work to do the tracking and another ton of work to process it and do anything about it, and there's not a lot of benefit to it to be had without revealing you're doing it - this will backfire. They are trying to normalize not having privacy, because that is kinda Meta's specialty, but I don't think it will catch on, even at Meta, in the long term. They'll lose too many good people and they'll have to take it back.

Now linux machines will be able to lie to me about when they are awake. Great innovation guys.

I ALWAYS get the data. If you or your insurance are paying for an MRI, X-Ray, or other scan, it is your RIGHT by law to get a copy of your own medical records. They can charge you a small fee to cover the costs of, for example, burning a CD, but I've actually never been charged for it.

As an app developer who has not looked into this beyond this article summary and who prefers to collect as little data as possible, it seems like if Apple doesn't end up providing an explicit option to opt out of serving customers in states where they are going to require you to store data on customers, ironically now I could do that myself manually, but in doing so I would have to ask the user's permission to let the app see their location (or try to infer it from their IP if that were good enough for Apple) just to prove they were in a place OTHER than one of these states with the insane laws before allowing them to use the app, and then I could throw away their location and not have to store anything (and if possible, just not let people from those storage-required states use it at all.)

To the user this would look more potentially invasive, as I'd have to ask for location permission at least once for everyone even in states without the stupid laws, which is both sad and funny.

My point was not about arbitrage, though that's another issue to worry about and imo you are understating it significantly.

The bigger deal is if you bought some of this crypto on blockchain X, and you want to pay someone who bought theirs on blockchain Y, you won't be able to send it to them without an intermediary service, forcing centralization which defeats the purpose of having a coin in the first place.

You can't have a single cryptocurrency be on more than one blockchain and be one single set of accounts / aka one "coin". If it's really on seven different blockchains, then this is actually seven different cryptocurrencies that will have seven different prices at any given time, that could be vastly different on different blockchains, not even taking multiple exchanges into account.

If they really did it this way, this crypto was designed by people who don't understand what crypto is or how it actually works. And if they are going to claim these seven different coins are actually one single one, you'll never know which price is the real one for what you have until they start publishing all seven prices.

Sounds like more of what I'd expect from this administration. I would have hoped that with all the huge crypto companies propping up this dictatorship though, they could have spared at least one or two experts who would say this is wrong.

YES. THIS. FFS they didn't say ampersand, it wasn't a hacking attempt, this is ALL a bug.