Intellectual diversity makes for better teams.

Why would you presume *that* from what was written?

While it is an enormous problem, possibly the most significant, we know how to shield against radiation, but it's going to take mass in the form of hydrogen-rich molecules like water or polyethylene (as examples). To solve that problem we are either going to have to make launches a lot cheaper, or figure out how to do it all in orbit.

It's at the edge of our technological capacity to produce such a spacecraft now, so the barrier is economic. That's a massive barrier, but in theory we definitely could, if we put a significant percentage of GDP of the wealthiest nations towards the project, produce a spacecraft that keep astronauts alive and relatively protected from ionizing radiation both on the journey and while on Mars.

As to your general assholery, I guess everyone has to have an outlet, though why Slashdot is a bit mysterious.

The fact that they reference a bunch of past breaches and supply chain attacks - but give absolutely zero explanation about how said attacks would be prevented by US manufacturers, nor any explanation of additional cybersecurity controls they will mandate on them - tells you everything you need to know about this.

This is about protectionism, not cybersecurity.

If it had to do with cybersecurity, then a set of objective evaluation criteria could be applied to ANY router, regardless of origin.

This is just about what venue the FTC needs to use to prosecute its case.

Cars with Chinese Communist Party spyware or the means to remotely install it are not.

Net result: I'll welcome a Chinese build of a totally disconnected,* manually controlled car if it met US safety standards and was cost-effective to own and operate. "Totally disconnected" pretty much rules out modern EVs.

* obviously connecting to the power grid is allowed, and I'll want to add an aftermarket AM/FM terrestrial radio.

If this were implemented today, by "tomorrow" users would effectively lose control because the governments would find a way to either legally change things so there is no control, or make it very inconvenient to live without giving up that control.

For the sake of maintaining some privacy it's best to not go down this path unless there is a way to prove to independent observers that it can't be hijacked or abused.

This debate has been going on for at least a couple of decades. I remember back in the Usenet days, when AOL and other early ISP users first started showing up in droves with whacked out untraceable bang paths that people were trying to sort out technical solutions, usually involving some servers tarpitting some domains, with the inevitable consequence that valid users (by whatever definition any given Usenet group had) were blocked.

In a way, AI bots aren't any different than the spam problem on fax machines and email; universal low-barrier delivery meets large scale programmatic swill. AI allows complexity that earlier spambots couldn't dream of, when the most sophisticated way of defeating filters was spelling "porn" as "pr0n" and a bit of header fuckery. In the end there is only two ways to go; either do what filtering you can and accept some degree of false positives, or go to identification systems that will, one way or the other, compromise anonymity, because make no mistake, once you start storing any kind of data linking an account to an actual human being; biometric, picture ID, phone number, mailing address or whatever, it won't take long for the court order to show up demanding you hand over all the de-anonymized account data to find the person distributing child porn, drugs, or calling their local political representative dirty names.

No, they don't. Or if they do today, they won't tomorrow.

Or, Motorola can just provide a different launcher that does the age verification. Which would be absolutely trivial for them to do.

Talk about a manufactured clickbait article.

It's only a matter of time before robots actually have actual fingerprints to defeat this exact thing.

Neo and Android-based Chromebooks, and "good-enough" Office alternatives like Google Docs and I would argue even LibreOffice (I use it almost exclusively these days), mean Microsoft is suffering a differentiation crisis. They'll likely have the corporate lock for some time to come, though they've managed to fuck up Outlook so badly that I have to be wondering if the only thing really keeping the big guys locked in as Teams at this point.

MS's ability to leverage Windows as the platform is decaying, and the "bells and whistles" approach has managed to alienate a lot of users. People are at the point where they use Windows because they have to, but there's enough platform-agnostic functionality out there that the old lock-ins they relied on to keep Windows dominant are becoming more like prisons for their own development teams.

I know MacOS has its critics, and in its own way it has its UI lock in, but after using it now for four years, and my use of Windows now being reduced to an RDP session at work, I have to say the experience overall has been pretty pleasant and productive. The lack of update nagging, the sheer horsepower of Apple Silicon, an actual *nix prompt instead of WSL, printing that isn't an absolute shitshow (and this is saying something because Windows used to be the reigning heavyweight champion of plug and play printer handling).

Windows 11 is its own type of hell, and every time I'm forced to use it I find it a slow, bloated, unintuitive mess. It feels like Windows 7 if you had let your 12 year old kid download a whole bunch of dubious software and now the desktop and taskbar do strange things while spam spontaneously appears. If someone had shown me Windows 11 fifteen years ago I would have gone "Holy shit man, your Windows 7 machine has been rootkitted!"

What?