Better yet, design the protocol correctly so that this isn't an issue.

AirPlay shouldn't need to "give them data about users' homes." It should just be a DNS service discovery record with the name of the TV set or whatever. Connecting should involve an initial handshake involving a device (TV) certificate signed by a trusted authority (presumably Apple), followed by a key exchange, and there should be no information transferred other than the name of the TV, which by virtue of the fact that there are *already* DNS service discovery records for AirPlay, is information that Meta already has if they want it, just by browsing for DNS-SD records.

AirDrop should provide only the name of the device that the incoming files are coming from and the files themselves. It should be 100% anonymous by design, using ECDH for key exchange or some more-quantum-computing-safe equivalent. Any other approach would be fundamentally flawed.

If that's not the way these things work, then the problem is the design. If it is, then their claims that it will be some huge privacy nightmare are absurd. Either way, the problem isn't that making things compatible creates risk for users. The problem is that Apple doesn't want to do so.

And it's a huge pain in the a**. I wanted to set up a simple way to use an Android large-screen tablet as a sheet music reader for an electronic organ, and to be able to use AirDrop to send stuff from my Mac and my iPhone. Unfortunately, Android doesn't support AirDrop, and I can't use an iOS device because Apple doesn't *make* 23-inch iPads for any amount of money. (And no, buying two iPad Pro 13" devices and putting them side by side for $2k+ isn't a realistic alternative to spending $400 for that Android tablet.) So in my case, the Apple users are getting a substandard experience because they can't be easily made compatible with Android.

Incompatibility doesn't benefit Apple. It hurts their users. What Apple sees as a competitive advantage, I see as a sh**ty user experience. And Apple really needs to relearn that.

You're joking right? You have Tesla's CEO in a leadership position. If you really think there won't be a push for more EVs under the next administration, you're kidding yourself. :-)

Note that the EU is not requiring Apple to use USB-C, that sort of regulation would create a permanent lock-in to what may be a great connector now but might be superseded by improved options in the future. Instead, the EU is requiring the use of a USB standard. The USB-IF has a great track record of developing and standardizing improved technologies as the needs and capabilities of the industry change, and if Apple finds that none of the USB-approved standards fit their needs, they'll be able to propose new designs for standardization. Of course, if they come up with something really great and standardize it, they won't be able to prevent others from using it.

I'm generally opposed to government regulation that might block innovation, but I think the EU's approach here strikes a good balance between preventing vendor proprietary lock-in (and the resulting proliferation of connectors) and the freedom to innovate and improve. The goodness of this balance depends heavily on USB-IF continuing to be a well-functioning standards body, of course, but they have a good track record and I see no reason to expect that to change.

I think the EU did a similarly good job with mandating GSMA-approved standards for cellular communications and banning carrier lock-in (technological or contractual). This resulted in better, faster, cheaper cellular communications technology in the EU as compared with the US. GSMA innovated and improved GSM over the years, but the requirement that everyone use a GSMA-approved standard kept all the carriers competing on a level field.

Yeah, we're not allowed to buy standard incandescent bulbs because some fraction of a percent of U.S. power consumption is just too high a burden for the environment to bear, but when tech companies demand an extra 8% of the power grid for AI that nobody wants or asked for, that's just fine. Rolling my eyes at the hypocrisy.

IMO, power companies and governments need to work together to cap power consumption for big tech, granting only a minimal allowance for energy use growth over time. They won't improve their efficiency unless forced to do so either by law or by the cost of building infrastructure to accommodate their massive overconsumption being reflected in their electrical bills in the form of massive surcharges per kWh. What's good for the consumer power market is also good for big business, whether they know it or not, and it is *definitely* good for the environment.

Alternatively, mandate that all power consumption increases by data centers be provided with 100% on-site green energy (no cap and trade nonsense) and let the tech companies figure out how to produce the power within those constraints.

The second sentence above does not follow from the first. They don't need to know who did create BTC to prove that Wright didn't. There are often many ways to prove person X didn't do Y without knowing who did.

I don't see how that's relevant. The human driver data was from the same regions, so it's a comparison of like to like.

Yes. I've seen a lot of it. Obviously it uses the English keywords and standard library names, but some compilers allow unicode in comments and even identifiers, so I've seen code where the *only* thing in English is the keywords and standard library identifiers. The need to use English keywords and standard library names really isn't a problem for Chinese speakers (or anyone, really), because those don't really mean the same things in programming as they do in English, so English-speakers also have to learn them.

They have created a few programming languages... you don't know about them because they're not used outside of China much. For example: http://epl.eyuyan.com/eprc.htm

Not hoping, working. Change has to start from the bottom and if everyone but the crazies abandons the party, it will be the party of crazies. Which, granted, is the case right now... and it may not be salvageable.

Have you really never heard the phrase "surface streets" before? Perhaps you're not from the US and that phrase is an Americanism?

There seem to be three standard rules.

1. Anything that is not demonstrably impossible is technically possible.

2. Within the set of what is technically possible, we need only look at the subset of simplest explanations.

3. Within the subset of simplest explanations, we need only consider those for which the level of evidence equals or exceeds the improbability of correctness.

A brain microbiome is technically possible, but it is not in the subset of simplest explanations, nor is the level of evidence sufficient. As such, It fails both the second and third tests.

To me, this does not mean we reject it outright, it means we simply don't consider it at all for right now. We neither accept nor reject, we simply put it to one side and see what scientists find in future. It's not a model we can usefully explore or make predictions with that would permit falsification.

Scientists are finding all kinds of new communications channels and behaviours within the brain. Clearly, our knowledge is nowhere near adequate to determine what is required. Let's get that sorted first, and then decide if there is anything left that needs a microbiome explanation.

I think they actually use more dangerous routes, because they stay on surface streets. I read just a month or two ago that they have finally begun using freeways in Phoenix. I don't believer the use freeways anywhere else they operate.

So the big question is if waymo vehicles travel safer routes than general driving. At least this is broken down by zip code . But one could probably come up with a different measure comparing accidents on similar paths. The data may not be dense enough for that though

What was it, then? The other reasonable definition I can think of is that it is an ideology that focuses on living within your means, i.e. balanced budgets, and the GOP is strongly opposed to that, too.

At least, that's what it is most of the time. Trumpism is a cult of personality, not an ideology, so it shifts with whatever Trump is saying.

The law was already passed when Montana's constitution was ratified. This is just the courts enforcing the law.

FWIW, that isn't actually true.