Yes, the problem with 'end-to-end encrypted traffic' is one end is the device, and the other end is the manufacturer. The supposed owner gets no look at the data 'his' device is sending

If (say) the bus services a naval base, very sensitive information may be transmitted (stop location, duration, schedule, internal fuel level...)

If only a strange hybrid of John Deere and Tesla built buses, those would not have this problem, right?

Right?

I don't know why large buyers, in particular, allow end-to-end encrypted traffic between the vendor and the products the buyer ostensibly owns.

At the very least, the traffic should be open to inspection by the buyer, who should be able to selectively turn off or disable aspects of it.

I agree completely. AIs can do that already. There are even some prompts supposed to enhance the interaction. Something like this:
  "You are an advanced so and so... You teach using the Socratic method".

Coupling AI to licensed course content chopped up for focussed instruction delivery will make it even more powerful. It should also reduce the chance of misinstruction or hallucination.

It can do a passable simulacrum of that :-).

Won't using 1Password - as opposed to using a local credential store - also risk compromise of the enterprise?

My impression of 1Password is that it is centralised store of encrypted passwords - isn't that a hacker magnet? Hackers could obtain the encrypted store and attempt to decrypt at leisure. Or hack 1Password's communication interfaces and endpoints.

I'd be much more comfortable if all 1Password did was enable the syncing of credential stores directly between devices, never keeping a copy . That way I gain a distributed master record. Basically, a signal to say "hey, a credential has changed; sync up with such and such device". If my devices happen to sync directly, the vendor may never even see an encrypted copy of my passwords, much less store it.

If a centralized master copy is essential, 1password should deploy software that centralizes credentials at the organisation level... The software should be owned by the customer. instead, right now the 1Password architecture has them hosting hundreds of millions of credentials on their servers. While the data is encrypted from their eyes, doesn't centralization make them a hacker magnet? Hackers could obtain encrypted stores with hundreds of millions of credentials and attempt to decrypt them at leisure. Or they focus their hacking efforts on 1Password's communication interfaces and endpoints. That make me queasy.

With 1 billion terminal sessions made per week to its mainframe cloud, IBM spins off its thriving hosted mainframe business. The IPO is valued at 1 Trillion dollars.

Then the microprocessor and PC revolution breaks.

In violation of "Federal anti-discrimination laws" seems to have been the key clause. It's unlikely you are in violation.

Why not have your lawyer list out all your DEI initiatives to the granting body and say "are you OK with this?". An OK by the granting makes it unlikely they can claw it back.

It should just disclose the data and put a disclaimer on how it disagree at the end of the report

If I want to learn (say), how to do Markov chain Monte Carlo methods, I need to scrounge around learning materials online, or signup for a Statistics degree.

  Why not create a framework for the user's AI to contact the university AI, formulate a learning plan involving university course content and past assignments, and maybe 3rd party content. A course tailored to the user like a well fitting suit, readied in seconds and costing a few bucks.

To convert the micro-courses to a micro-credential, the user pays a bit more and takes an online exam proctored by AI-monitored cameras.

Every technology that bosses think is useful, they pursue and *implement* by integrating it into their business process. So Ford implemented assembly lines for the Model T. Companies implemented virtual machines in data centers. Google implemented Kubernetes-like software across its internal operations (?)

Why is implementing AI technology your headache? Especially if the only interface you have is a prompt? Implementation is your boss's job.

I think certain development tools have integrated AI well. The business world, in general, has not.

AI too has its occasional hallucinations and general weirdness. So perhaps two independent AIs?

On a different note, AI cameras aren't everywhere. Perhaps, mobile AI camera (s).

Or two, body-worn, shoulder-mounted AI cameras+microphones that have full authority to independently change camera angle.

"A chip on each shoulder" :-)

"Combined with a form of fusion... the machines had found all the energy they would ever need."

Apparently, Amazon meetings have an empty chair. It is supposed to represent the customer in the room.

Do they now use the chair for 'Pin the tail on the donkey' games?

From personal experience, Prime video has become unusable after I refused their shakedown to pay extra to skip ads.

Yet, you'll have no problem with a Ring camera.

People need support and monitoring where they are vulnerable. You may be vulnerable to a criminal at your door, but feel confident in your home with your door closed.

Many elderly are vulnerable within their home, and would accept and benefit from monitoring you find intrusive. Especially if they were assured that no human would watch the video unless the monitoring AI flagged trouble.

Of course, ideally you would always have two nurses monitoring each other.

This is Intel CEO, Hock Tan, speaking.When you have an aggressive and combative CEO, executives at this man's level become flesh puppets channeling the CEO's business vision. Yes, a business needs vision but this behaviour is a bit sad because it harms creative thinking.

Yes, Intel could nickel and dime their open-source efforts. That is true but has little relevance. Intel fell behind in hardware. Focus on the hardware ocean Intel - not the little software boat floating on it.