Typically in sound quality tests, you tell subjects which file is the original, then have them rate how close to the original the other samples are. In this he just gave them four samples, and had them guess which was which, turning it into a more subjective test of guessing what they think the track should like. In addition, based on the table he got a total of 1-4 responses per track, which is far too low to have any statistical significance.

This was a funny joke, but not the gotcha the article played it up to be.

This drone (an MK30) is 78 pounds, and about 6 feet diameter. They could easily kill a person if they hit a them. I think this is the fourth time I've read about their drones crashing, and all the cases seemed reasonably avoidable. They are currently operating under a special FAA license that exempts them from several rules that normal drone operators have to follow, like not requiring visual line of site. Given their safety record so far, I think that license should be revoked, and they can go back to a normal commercial license, until they have proven their operations to be safe again.

Oh dear god. Now I am visualizing competitors finding ways to make their skin floppy in places so it parachutes out like a flying squirrel. Are you happy now?

> I don't see what would be different than if he'd pasted the text into Google Docs or Word 365 to make some edits.
Government employees are prohibited from using those public cloud services for OUO as well. There are separate instances of some of these services like Office 365 which can be used for OUO, but they are kept separate for defense in depth, given these services can have bugs that allowed people to access documents they should be allowed to.

Furthermore, it is worse because the TOS for ChatGPT state that they can and will use your inputs for training, unlike Google Docs or Word 365 (at least in the past - I haven't checked recently).

He had access to AI systems that were approved for OUO, and then on top of that given special permission to use the public ChatGPT for non-sensitive documents, but chose to use public ChatGPT for OUO documents. That would be a security incident for any clearance holder, and is completely inexcusable for the head of CISA.

They are no longer required to fully fund pensions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The reason for the rules seems like common sense to me. There is a certain distance needed to stop or change lanes when driving at highway distance. If the truck breaks down just over a hill, cars won't see it early enough unless the warning signals are put further back where they can be seen coming up the hill.

I seriously doubt that these rules were just shit someone made up. The NHTSA has so many studies regarding road regulations and guidance. They might be outdated for modern technology, and might be worse than newer alternatives - I don't doubt that hasn't been studied yet - but I would absolutely wager that there were studies done to justify the original numbers.

Furthermore, when congress delegated regulatory power to these agencies they included laws dictating how the rules needed to be determined, specifically so you can't have a bunch of political hacks changing them on a whim. Changes to the regulation need to be justified, and there needs to be comment period to gather any information and concerns that the agency itself might have overlooked, respond to the comments and incorporate any changes as appropriate. I don't want regulators to be able say "this is just some crap" and change rules every four years because they shoot from the hip. That means that changes take 1-3 years depending on how complicated and motivated the agency is, but it is worthwhile to end up with better regulations and avoid being constantly jerked around.

> And, in that case, why add a new law versus just adding to the CCPA?
It is an amendment to the CCPA. Websites covered by the CCPA are required by law to honor the opt-out, and browsers are required to implement it.

I've never seen a cookie banner ask for consent to collect and store my IP address. If that is their reason, they completely failed to obtain consent in a manner that meets the law.

The reason for the banners are simple - a court case ruled that cookies are covered by GDRP, but they haven't explicitly ruled on other tracking mechanisms. So ad companies pushed the minimum and most annoying method of conforming with that ruling without changing their practices, and continue to ignore the fact that all the other tracking they are doing without consent is blatantly illegal.

The Switch 2 pricing was announced well after Trump was elected, and undoubtedly included *some* additional markup for tariff increases from the get go, since he had been talking about tariffs the whole campaign, even if it has been a continual game of roulette trying to predict the *exact* tariffs. So it makes sense that the Switch 1 prices would be more sensitive to the tariffs than the Switch 2.

You mean the JFK documents that were released containing hundreds of social security numbers of federal employees? Not exactly a glowing recommendation.

Wow, you really can't even continue reading once sentence after the one that triggers you.

Everything you said is true for an individual, but misses the point the parent was making regarding the total number of charging stations needed.

If an EV needs to charge 20 minutes every 200 miles, and an ICE vehicle needs to pump gas for 5 minutes every 200 miles, then you will need 4 times the number of public level 3 chargers as gas pumps to serve the same number of cars. In fact if roadtripping EVs are mostly charging at normal meal breaks, then you will need even more chargers, since use will be more clustered compared to gas stops.

On the flip side, the public chargers will only be used by people on road trips or who don't have a home charger which will decrease their volume. Still I would expect you to need more chargers than gas pumps along highways, and fewer in the middle of cities.

They wrote this software for free, and they gave you for free security updates that don't require accepting any new features. They even went out of their way to continue putting out security releases (ESR 115.13) for operating systems that Microsoft and Apple don't even support anymore. And they did this all six months in advance so you would have plenty of time to upgrade.

But enjoy your freedom to run old unpatched software.

In many ways I like the Lyttle Lytton contest even more. There were some very good Bulwer-Lytton entries, but it could also devolve into who could write the longest run-on sentence. Having a short word limit forced authors to really distill their horribleness.

If you take a book, reproduce it exactly, and add commentary at the end, the resulting work is a derivative work and you need permission of the original copyright holder to distribute it. FSF has only granted permission to use the AGPL exactly as it is with no modification or additions, so Neo4j had no permission to use their modified version of the AGPL, and doing so was violating FSF's copyright.