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 world we've built is built for our shape -- bipedal, upright. While specialist shapes can be useful in limited circumstances, a bipedal human-shaped robot would be adaptable to the world that already exists.

It doesn't, actually. The official description from the IEC says:

Emphasis mine. The standard test for IPX7 is submersion in still water to a depth of 1 meter for 30 minutes. IPX8 is "better than that". Apple, Google, Samsung, etc. all define how much better on their own. CNBC has an excellent video explainer on what exactly all this means.

These companies are designing to protect against people dropping their phone in the toilet, or maybe a kiddie pool. And yeah, as called out in the CNBC video, the advertising is very deceptive and unfair.

I think what we do have evidence for is that you didn't read the paper, but I did, because it was interesting. From the paper:

Godel does no such thing. The incompleteness theorem says that some things can't be proven, and aren't computable, but every example of that *includes humans*. It's not a case that you can't build a computer and program in an axiomatic system that is consistent and can prove every statement with godel numbers, but that a human can prove a statement in that system that that computer can't prove. The human can't either. It's a statement about the limits of axiomatic mathematical systems.

There's no evidence anything in human thought falls under the realm of uncomputability. In fact, given that the brain is made up of neurons that are guaranteed to fire or not fire given specific conditions, electrical and chemical, there's plenty of evidence that it *must* be computable and algorithmic.

That is a terrible system, I'm surprised they do it that way. Banks are usually better about that. The only times I got a call from my bank that required me to prove who I was, it was either a returned call, and they mentioned the subject and that I had called, before they started verifying my identity, so I knew it was legit. Or the fraud alert people, and they could easily verify that they were who they said they were, because they asked about specific purchase attempts with the amount and location before they tried to verify my identity.

I did get one *actual* phishing call decades ago that made me absolutely crack up. The person on the other line said they were from "the bank." They didn't say which bank, just "the bank." Usually I immediately hang up on phishing, but that one made me want to engage a bit: I asked "which bank" and he answered, "your bank." At that point I just burst out laughing and the gig was up, so I hung up.

I had an instance of a work e-mail years ago, that was sent from a third-party contractor, that had so many red flags for very obvious phishing (including coming from outside the organization, wtf).

Where I work, we have a place to forward phishing emails so that IT can review it. I forwarded it there, and apparently so many other people did that a follow-up email had to be sent out that said, "we thank everyone for pointing out this e-mail as phishing, but we can confirm it's actually legit."

I think they learned the lesson from that, because it has not happened since that we got such a terrible email. I think my point is that overtraining may not work, but having a place to report phishing is a great idea. It only takes one person to report it, and then the IT department sends out a massive e-mail to warn everyone else about it, so it doesn't rely on them recognizing it (and anyone that already fell victim to it can report that they have, so action can be taken to minimize the damage). And in cases like you and I experienced, they can also do the opposite and confirm that it's real.

I agree, but go the other route for the comparison to humans and thought: people need to stop thinking that what we do when we "think" isn't algorithmic. Of course it is. We're not that special.

The models are trained on the same data, and they create their output based on the connections they made with all the previous data. When we ask it to generate "random" numbers, they're not any more random than when a human is asked to generate a random list of numbers. It's not purposefully encoding the information in the numbers because transmitting its love for owls is important to it, but the favorite animal information tokens are part of the seed made when it's generating those numbers.

Invariably, the second LLM that has been trained on the same data as the first will have the same data connections to those numbers. It's similar to how, when I was dating, I was filtering out anyone that added the information in the app that they had not been vaccinated for COVID. There's a *lot* of information associated with the type of person who was not only not vaccinated, but felt that they needed to state it. The information isn't contained in that assertion alone, but combined with the information already in my brain, it tells me a lot about their belief structure in things completely unrelated to vaccines and COVID. The LLM is doing that.

"back" to piracy

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.

I'm aware of how they handle the recall. My 2 year anniversary with my Ioniq 6 was last Friday. (No more free EA DCFC for me.)

My point was the total number of cars that were repaired after an ICCU failure is very small. Lots of manufacturers have recalls, including for parts that can cause a vehicle to stop running. Ford is the worst. Every vehicle lineup has their issues, so just putting it in perspective.

2 years for me, no ICCU issues. No charging issues. They did replace my interior door panels under warranty for peeling clear coat.

A tiny number of cars, but with very vocal responses because gotta drive them clicks!

Statistically, just 1% of the roughly 200,000 vehicles involved in the recall can have their ICCUs fail, which is 2,000 cars. Out of all the cars that are part of the latest recall for the failing ICCU, 41,137 Hyundai and Genesis EVs have already been fixed by Jan. 22, while another 14,828 Kia EV6s have had the remedy applied. Motor Trend concurred in a recent look at the issue: "Itâ(TM)s a big deal, but not one that individual E-GMP owners are statistically likely to face."

Once again, and YET STILL, here is an example of "advertisers" absolutely gutting you for whatever data they can possibly get, and paying a pittance to developers. Online advertising needs to be banned full stop. They are gluttonously gorging themselves on your personal information, fuck em all.

This could have been even funnier if, instead of French for "Viva la revolution", you used the Esperanto "Vivu la revolucio!".

Nobody. They're replacing them with universal chargers that have BOTH. And support credit-card readers, which the Tesla ones didn't. And upgrading them from the v3 400V 175kW Tesla chargers to Applegreen's 800V 350kW.

Tesla's contract ended. It was rebid. Tesla lost. Elon whines and throws a tantrum.