You think picking someone who will fight your religious enemy is a sign that you think highly of them?

Both. Idiocy isn't all on one side, and neither is evil. And neither is self-serving action.

Law not lae.

You have to wonder why Sony is running the same code, finding these exploits and patching them first.

Exploits like this are never ideal anyway. You need older firmware for them to work, because as soon anything using them is released, Sony will patch them and require the latest firmware to play newer games and use their online services. Most people are going to want to wait for an unpatchable exploit anyway, something that either targets ROM code early in the boot process, or which comes after Sony has abandoned support for the platform so won't patch it.

Cats can't reason or have novel thoughts either, but it didn't stop them enslaving the human race.

It would make sense for Flock to have guarantees for weather damage or similar, but vandalism is a lae enforcement proposition. Flock definitely overextended themselves.

What kind of crackhead at Flock agreed to a contract obligating them to cover the cost of cameras lost to vandals?

If Flock is losing money, then presumably so will everyone else.

It doesn't matter if they can really think or not, if the output is good enough.

Maybe the real story here is that despite having access to the most advanced AI models, these companies were unable to secure their own systems.

Oh my, that's going to be easy. All I need to do is take the entire use case of phones (there's almost nothing a phone can do that someone might not want to do while using these glasses as a display), and union with all AR applications, and union with whatever applications that Meta intends to develop to attract people to the camera-less version of the glasses.

So here's a few: reading texts/emails without having to look down, following a map, playing games, surfing the web (which might include posting to Slashdot), and answering a "what is this thing I'm looking at?" query.

Does it matter of it's true or not? Other countries will take it as licence to deploy their own weapons, or to paint the US as the bad guy.

Popular opinion is poor evidence.

the vast, overwhelming usage is to produce non-consenting public recordings of people and leak them to Meta for further data mining.

I wonder where we find stats to resolve our disagreement. (I assert it's a rare case, but I'm pulling that "fact" out of my ass. Alas, I think you're also pulling the "overwhelming usage" claim out of yours, too.)

does anyone at all really buy into the idea that guys are following around the women of Walmart to video them?

I do buy into it, but I don't buy into any allegations that it's typical or a significant fraction of users.

I know people who own guns but never shot anyone. I know people who have internet access but never pirated any movies. I know people who have very fast cars but don't get speeding tickets. You'd really be surprised at what so many people don't do, even though they could.

Then there was a case of some perv recording a woman in a shopping centre.

And then there was the case of the Satan-worshipping, D&D-playing Judas Priest fan, who was caught backtalking his mom!