There's probably too much metal between the cargo hold and the passenger compartment for Bluetooth to work anyway. I think all actual bombs on aircraft (other than the failed shoe bomber) have been triggered by pressure switches at altitude or timers.

So it's not just that they wouldn't be stupid enough, but also that it probably wouldn't be successful even if they were.

I answered your question before you asked it. You didn't like the answer so you arbitrarily claimed you were talking about morality rather than laws. Do you think setting booby traps is moral? If so, that's a reflection that you are not just a dipshit but a sociopath as well.

To be clear, you are a dipshit who won't answer basic questions to defend your awful analogy. If I warn you that being a dipshit might lead to getting shot, does that excuse anyone who actually shoots you?

The law in question here makes it a crime when someone "knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer". Do you think that's satisfied by your sign hypothetical? I think you've left out some of the elements related to intent, and made the "causes the transmission" element much less clear. That's why I did not say anything like what you suggest.

Booby traps are still illegal and immoral even if you have "keep out - no trespassing" signs all over your property, and in this case it wasn't even the malicious abuser's own property.

Intentionally destroying somebody's data is still a crime if they have backups. The intent is the difference between this and equipment failure.

Do you think that women should go around in burqas and only have themselves to blame if they get raped when not wearing a burqa?

In this case, that's the person who snuck malicious instructions into the prompt, intending for it to destroy data.

This isn't rocket science. There are projects that do the same kind of thing conscientiously -- they have an AGENTS.md or a section in their README that basically tells an AI agent not to write code or create a bug report or whatever. Bad users can work around that, but those bad users are less harmful than the kind of person who prompt-injects malware.

The LLM companies are not causing the transmission of the command to delete things. If anyone, it's the jqwik developer who made test code generate the instruction at runtime in a hidden form.

The intent to damage is crystal clear here, and the attempt to hide the command makes it easy to assign responsibility for the knowing transmission of the command.

LLMs are unpredictable, but that's a very different threat than malicious instructions hidden by an attacker. The person who hid the malicious instructions is analogous to the hypothetical person who trained a dangerous dog and released it in a kindergarten.

Computers don't have agency; people do. The person who tells a computer to delete data is the one responsible for the deletion. This isn't rocket science.

My house is a relatively normal size (1800 square feet), and it still takes more than three full minutes for water in my shower to reach full temperature when I run it straight hot. If I also turn on both faucets in my bathroom, I can get that down to about twenty or thirty seconds, which is barely tolerable.

At my mom's house in Tennessee, the distance the water has to travel is comparable, but it takes only ten seconds or so.

It's a huge downside to all the water-saving showerheads and faucets that were forced upon us here in California decades ago. We waste a lot of time and energy to make up for a water shortage that exists only because of decades of politicians being short-sighted and kicking the desalination can down the road over and over so that the money doesn't get spent on their watch.

Translation: A company that has the potential to benefit from regulation by squeezing out competitors wants more regulation.

I'm not saying they're not right, just that it seems awfully convenient for a company specializing in pumps that recirculate data center water to want efficiency regulations that would push customers towards their most efficient (and thus presumably most high-margin) pumps.

Instead of having your hot water fan out in a tree, you wire it like a token ring with a return pipe, where each faucet only has a short bit of pipe between it and the ring. Then, you have a pump to circulate hot water through the ring-shaped pipe network. That way, it takes half a second to get hot water instead of half a minute or more.

Sure. I'd imagine most hardware vendors will want it. I'm just saying that the wording, at least as described in the summary, is... problematic at best.