>"Officers aren't supposed to get in front of cars and the person we all know you're alluding to"

I was not referring to any particular event. And pointing to just one would not discount the other 99.9+%.

>"Get fucked, Nazi maggot (but I repeat myself)"

You really are a nasty person. And that doesn't even need being repeated.

Ronald Reagan was talking openly about weapons in space and there were acknowledged government programs on the topic. Back then. Ronald. Frikkin. Reagan. Before Trump. Before Obama. Before Bush. Both of them. Before Clinton. The government was openly active in this area a long long llloooonnnggggggggggg time ago. This stuff was happening during the Cold War. This is not new.

>"Will the old trick of outlining your license plate with a bunch of high power IR LEDs obscure your plate from the camera, while still allowing human eyes to read them....?"

1) That won't work in the daytime.
2) Many States have laws against anything that would tamper with the ability of cameras to video/photograph plates (and I am sure more laws will be coming).
3) Flock and others are gathering non-plate fingerprinting so they can get around depending on the plate. Vehicle make/color/accessories, bumper stickers, accident damage, WiFi/bluetooth/TPMS broadcasts, etc.

This is a fight that you cannot win, other than making the surveillance, itself, illegal. And I fear that is going to be a losing prospect as well.

>"Unfortunately that give the police a reason to kill you."

An outcome that is statistically almost zero, if you follow instructions and common sense. But I guess trying to escape, run over officers, fight officers, and/or brandish weapons (or look like it) makes more sense.

Your chance to resist/correct/fight law enforcement is in court, not on the street.

>"Russia's Foreign Ministry issued criticism of America's move, saying "In pursuit of its narrow self-interests, Washington is ready to completely ignore the catastrophic consequences for humanity of any armed conflict in orbit."

Yeah, I don't think we care much about Russia's take on this. They have little to no moral high ground when it comes to "humanity" and "armed conflict". And China has been, no doubt, moving forward steadily with weapons in space.

Anyway, killer space satellites and sentient AI possibly coming... has there ever been a more clear indication of Sykynet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

That might be on by default in later versions. But it can be disabled and will remain disabled. And that doesn't mean it isn't being "private."

Some people don't want automatic updates, or automated checking. It also depends on which OS and which Firefox you have installed. For example, under Linux, Firefox from the distro will typically have zero notifications or updating because it is handled elegantly by the distro updates.

>"Apparently Mozilla isn't interested in simple. Like so many other companies, the object is to make things as complicated, convoluted, and inconvenient as possible."

Their objective is to make sure web browsing is secure and that you are aware of updates. Look, I agree with you that there should be an easy way to turn it off, even if just in about:config. But they made it clear when they took it away (many years ago) that they aren't going to bring that back, due to security. And I do have some sympathy for that position, considering many users would just never update- giving themselves a sub-optimal experience and possibly giving Mozilla a bad reputation.

But complaining about it to others in Slashdot over and over makes zero difference. All it does is stir up unnecessary and unneeded negativity while also making it sound like there is NO way to disable update checking/warning, which is not true. And that they are incompetent on this, which is also not true, because it was/is intentional.

Will the old trick of outlining your license plate with a bunch of high power IR LEDs obscure your plate from the camera, while still allowing human eyes to read them....?

Translation: The idiot employee in Sector G-7 will never push the big, red button that disables the cooling pumps to the nuclear reactor.

D'oh....

Whether you're 20, 30, 40, or 50, you're gonna be fucked by AI in some way in the next decade. It doesn't matter if you're old or not.

How?

Can you give some realistic, meaningful ways the average person like myself will be fucked by AI?

Facebook launched the day after DARPA shut down Digital LifeLog and was funded directly by Peter Thiel. It's been connected to all the intelligence agencies since its founding. He doesn't actually need to make money. That's not the point. I deleted my Facebook years ago and everyone still says shit like "Didn't you see it on my Facebook?" How?! People are oblivious, and it's still used for nearly all small business instead of actual web pages. It's not going anywhere and it already has full capture.

>"That's true now that pocket is gone, perhaps."

I don't think pocket did anything to collect data unless you had it configured and were actually using it, though. I am not certain. I just disabled pocket in settings or about:config and paid it no mind.

How can you state that? I'm assuming you're a Rust proponent from that wild statement, which goes to show you how little you know about the topic.

Yes, memory leaks can and do happen in Rust. Rust is not perfect. Neither are the people who write it.

Most Rust code is written by its proponents' AI models, anyway.

This is an engineering maxim as old as time.

If your response to theoretically old, brittle, and "wrong language" code is "rewrite it in something better", you don't understand the problem.

There has never in the history of software development been an effort to rewrite a platform in another language which wasn't subsequently plagued by all manners of new and interesting problems.

In a best case scenario, the product has an exhaustive regression testing framework, complete unit tests for every function, e2e testing, and reintegrative CI/CD. But that is rarely true for any project, and certainly isn't true for old ones which predate such practices.

You make an important point: the biggest positive contribution to making old tools better without introducing more brittle behavior is with coverage from test suites, and improved code coverage.