It is typical behavior for American companies to do whatever they want regardless of the laws. The worst they'll suffer is a fine that is often less than the cost of complying, and much less when you factor in the opportunity cost incurred by the inevitable delays caused by complying. In most cases, you'd be better off saying "no" to data centers, although that would get in the way of your data sovereignty ambitions. Before allowing projects like this, you need to realize that American companies are not going to comply with your laws unless you dramatically increase your penalties first.

So if a half-dozen or so chipped in, they could do it with money pulled out of the couch cushions in the C-suite.

The problem is that every company is looking at every other company to go first. They likely have the mindset "company X has a larger budget or company Y has a larger dependency on PHP, so they should be the ones to contribute".

And have them flip-flop at every change in the administration. DEI, anti-DEI, DEI, ...

It's exhausting keeping an eye on their ever-growing CoCs.

Yes, heaven forbid the government provide some incentives to the companies that manage our infrastructure to invest in better technology rather than milk the old tech in perpetuity.

Not to mention that if Comcast doesn't like the fact that their competitors are getting subsidies for offering a better product, Comcast is free to start running fiber, get those subsidies, and have a more competitive product to offer their customers.

use that root to sign a nice long-lived certificate (say, 10 years)

Apple caps that at 825 days. That's still a somewhat long time, but they can shorten it whenever they feel like it. And I fully expect them to do that sometime after the 47-day max for public CAs becomes normalized.

The branding became an all encompassing thing and that was a mistake that had to be rectified. People thought of it all as summarising text, generating images and natural English commands (generative model use) and wanted to gut the lot because of it. It's similar to the mistake Mozilla made where they included a toggle to

Chop off the end of the first paragraph before submitting the form?

It's not about bandwidth, it's about latency. These days audio sample libraries are huge and the latency of loading these samples from an external drive causes lots of stuttering during playback. Some libraries have the capability of loading a portion of all samples into memory before playback to account for such latency, but many don't have this capability. And I find it funny that a company that goes to ridiculous lengths to shave off a fraction of a millimeter from their laptops for the sake of portability has fans that state the solution to the problems Apple has created is to carry an external drive and cable everywhere.

For me, the biggest news is the possibility of a tokenized stock exchange. I have no interest at all in cryptocurrency, but I would like more transparency and control over my assets which could potentially be done if they were tokenized. If it was designed securely, it could prevent shadow transactions and would expose frontrunning. Also, I have a lot less trust in stock exchanges in the past couple of decades due to all of their fuckery, so I wouldn't mind holding onto the assets directly after they're traded. While I'm not currently concerned about a rug pull of my assets, there have been claims that exchanges have been surreptitiously selling shares on margin without the owner's knowledge. Just twenty years ago I would have dismissed such claims as complete nonsense, but after seeing Wells Fargo get caught doing something similar with money held in bank accounts they managed, it's now entered the realm of possibility in my mind. While the reports may just be conjecture, it's spooked some people into purchasing direct-registered shares to ensure that such fuckery can't be committed.

Regardless of the motivation, tokenized assets could inject some trust into a system in which trust has been extremely eroded. And for the aforementioned reasons, I'll be very skeptical of all implementations since the people in power have too much to lose from allowing their shenanigans to be exposed and to lose direct control of people's assets.

It became political when a large group of women, mostly on the far left, insisted that she be free from the consequences of her actions and told any men who dissented that they're not allowed to have an opinion about it since they've never given birth.

everything else can be blamed on Obama, burden or Hillary

The rare autocorrect Freudian slip.

Trump rapes pedophiles? I guess that would make him the nonconsensual-sex version of Dexter.

That would be a temporary solution, but competitors of Flock are already using fingerprints from your car based on Bluetooth from infotainment, built-in modem for updates and telematics, and even your TPMS sensors which broadcast unique IDs. In addition to that the fingerprints can contain info from your phone (Wifi, Bluetooth, RFID, cellular modem) and other wireless devices such as headphones and AirTags. Apparently this is already available in a product known as Leonardo. Looks like it's time to build a Faraday Cage around my vehicle.

Oops! MW-h, not WM/h. That was pure dyslexic typing.

It looks like Muphry's Law applies even when correcting your own posts!

There is an irony here

It's not irony, it's hypocrisy!

Also, what the reporter is doing is nowhere near as bad as what Flock does. The reporter didn't surreptitiously gather tons of data about this person, feed it to law enforcement agencies, or make reports (sometimes falsely) to those agencies that the person may have violated some laws. That's the real problem I have with Flock. I don't mind recording in public spaces. But I get really pissed off at what they're doing with those recordings behind the scenes.

Several decades ago, politicians would have recognized the dangers of this technology, not to mention how unpopular they are, and would have created restrictions on what companies could do with the footage. Republicans and Democrats would have argued vehemently about where to draw that line, but they would have both recognized that something needed to be done. That created a relatively high-trust society because the people felt that the government would do a reasonable job protecting them from overreach. The reason why nobody trusts the government anymore is because they let this shit run rampant, despite how unpopular it is. And it's gotten to the point that even if the government did create laws that prohibit analyzing the footage and alerting law enforcement agencies about the whereabouts of people of potential interest, no one would believe that those prohibitions would actually be enforced. So instead of having a potentially useful technology used in a reasonable manner, the only way we can be sure that it's not being abused is to ban it outright. This is what happens when governments decay to the point of dysfunction. Given that history shows it always ends the same way, and that so many top politicians supposedly studied history as political science majors, you would think that they'd act with far more caution, or at least pretend to give a fuck about the will of the people. Because if they're not respecting the will of the people, then we effectively no longer have a representative government.