This.
It doesn't need to be a special packet, it could be a specific pattern hiding inside any packet received by the host. You don't need the ability to send traffic directly to the target, just the ability to interact with a traffic flow in or out of the system.

I've also had audio blocked in browsers since it was implemented.
Nothing more irritating than opening a page and suddenly some loud obnoxious noise blares out.

He was over-leveraged and didn't manage risk well. In other words, he was a terrible fund manager.

For an SMS based backdoor, no. It seems these devices are designed to use cellular connections (which makes sense since traffic cameras will be installed in remote locations).

And then most firewalls focus on inbound connections, but often do nothing to prevent a compromised device from making outbound connections. SMS could easily be used to initiate an outbound connection.

The problem is when the genuinely useful features take a back seat to user-hostile features like shoving ads in your face, or vehicle functionality which is present but disabled unless you pay more to activate it etc.

These anti features become associated with the technology, and cause users to fondly remember their older simpler cars that didn't have these negative things.

There are also useful features like navigation that are either poorly implemented, or users just don't know how to use them. This also puts users off.

Another thing that puts users off is things that break and cause unrelated functionality to stop working (like the printer/scanner combos that wont scan if there's no ink in the printer etc)...

Or newer functionality that's now mandated by law, but older vehicles get a pass. A good example here would be ABS. If you have a modern vehicle and your ABS fails the vehicle still drives perfectly well and is still safer overall than an older vehicle with no ABS, but it will fail its annual inspection for this and you might be faced with a costly repair. If you're driving an older vehicle that never had ABS at all then you get a free pass.
While i can understand the safety reasons here, this annoys people especially older drivers.

No, the worst part about ads is that they exist at all in a form that intentionally disrupts your attention.

That fundamental issue is then exacerbated by the current societal tolerance for lies, and you get intrusive advertisements that are deeply misleading.

So, why are you tolerating current advertising at all when there are tools that effectively eliminate it?

The assumption is that using your phone / infotainment system to search for, possibly purchase, and play a new release is an attention-demanding task that takes substantial time. The consensus above is that Spotify's UI, in particular, is poor, and thus requires extra interaction, and thus attention off the road, exacerbating the problem. We know that attending to a phone, even briefly, is mutually exclusive to attending to the road. That alone is an explanatory mechanism for the increase in fatalities.

But then we augment that supposition by the additional effects that new music is also a distraction, albeit much lower grade than operating a phone. It might be a lesser effect, but listening to a song or three is also expected to span longer time than interacting with a phone, so might have substantial cumulative impact.

An additional effect that I have not seen mentioned above is the expectation that the demographic listening to top releases is likely to skew younger, and thus contains drivers with less experience than the population. Less experienced drivers are at far greater risk of accidents of any sort, and are more sensitive to distraction.

And, as a parent of teenagers, the solution is clear to me: do not frelling use your phone when driving, period.

That sounds like a pretty lousy SUV...

People drive SUVs in Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Las Vegas and other places which regularly see temperatures much higher than 37C, the AC works just fine and the roads are just fine.

Fixed cameras are easily avoided by someone looking to commit a crime. It's not hard to map out the cameras and calculate blind spots, or to disguise yourself such that the captured footage is useless for identifying you.

A live guard can move around, and will also easily identify someone who's taken measures to obscure their face.

A current robot is somewhere between, it's basically a mobile camera so it's less predictable/avoidable than a fixed camera, but not as good as a live guard. They're limited by laws currently, otherwise you could build a terminator/robocop style robot that was armed. Now that absolutely would deter/stop crime.

They do not do network level OS fingerprinting. If you were to do that then you would find the vast majority of hosts are linux - because very few windows systems are not behind a firewall, and most firewalls are linux based.

They are reading the user-agent header from web browsers.

And it's extremely unreliable, especially for devices which are behind a firewall or proxy.

Bots don't pretend to be linux, if they're trying to hide that they are then they pretend to be windows.

From TFOriginalScientificArticle: "Additionally, death certificates included a field for reported usual occupation (the occupation in which the decedent spent most of their working life), generally completed by a funeral director with help from the decedent’s informant."

Looking at Figure 1 from the paper, taxi drivers and ambulance drivers are clear lower-bound outliers in terms of risk from Alzheimer's. But they also die a full decade before the eyeballed mean of the population. There are a couple of data points in the middle plot from that figure that have just slightly higher adjusted risk of Alzheimer's, but have lifespans at ca. 80 years that are well *above* the mean. Regrettably, the paper does not discuss those data points -- me, I'd want to have those occupations since they trade a very slightly increased risk of Alzheimer's for 15 more years of life.

And, then, the bit that's also not in the headline and TFS is that taxi drivers and ambulance drivers have *increased* risk of other forms of dementia, especially taxi drivers.

Also, disappointingly, the paper does not show the full ranked list of occupations (even in the supplementary data), highlighting only a small handful (taxi drivers, ambulance drivers, bus drivers, airline pilots, ship captains, and CEOs).

At least someone realized that it would be a good idea to scan outgoing traffic.

One hopes that the internal reaction amongst the leadership was more than just, "bloody hell."