I don't use Mac. I've always had issues with the pay to be cool thing.

In this day and age there is now touch? OK this little factoid caught me by complete surprise.

I'm Linux/Unix dude with the occasional Windows use. So I'm completely out of touch with MacOS.

Again I'm completely shocked this isn't in the OS yet.

Yes rare earths are actually far from rare.

Whats actually rare is the willingness to process the ores with highly toxic processes. Canada and Australia are sitting on gigantic reserves of rare earths in general. However they have a strong unwillingeness to face the consequences of processing the ores.

So its welcome to see less poluting processes.

I feel that tokens consumed by residents of a nation should be taxed by that nation in the form of tokens.

Those tokens are than used to improve the quality of life of it's citizens. Ideally not used for Offence or Defence purposes but rather put to addressing social issues in society.

Drone just means autonomous. Drones we use today all we are doing is giving them commands. Flying drones for example automatically compensate for level, drift, speed so that their behaviour matches the operators inputs.

It would be near impossible for a single person to control each of 4 rotors on a common drone. Onboard electronics take care of that for us.

This is the "autonomous" part.

On the moon it would be a rocket propelled or wheel based device that would to give commands. From as simple as travel this fast this direction to go fly here and pick up that rock and bring it back.

It's accepted that Lithium is not rare.

There are however 3 big issues.
1. Cost and Toxic waste associated with extraction. ( This article shows progress in this regard. )
2. Stability, Lithium batteries have an issue with nasty fires.
3. Density of viable lithium related ores. EG in the west most lithium ore is from 2 areas. Canada and Australia. Both locations are actually rather remote in each country.

Lithium is not a good battery base. Why? It's not stable. Energy density is pretty good. But as we know when you push the limits you can get issues. Samsung did this with a series of phone batteries. They ended up with a lot of fires and a very expensive recall. So something that is energy dense but has a significant risk the health and life. It no longer is a good option for batteries.

For reasons like this lithium will ultimately be deposed as the king of batteries.

That said this process is welcome. As it has a dramatic reduction in toxic residuals from processing. So this is a major plus.

If this was discovered even 2 years ago my personal belief is the investment in the process would be huge.

However,

With recent industrial progress on Sodium batteries investors are going to have to weigh the pros and cons. With many big investors actually holding money back from both until they see real results from both systems.

I want to invest but I'm definitely holding back myself.

Have a look at the recent developments around Sodium batteries.

If the momentum holds for sodium they will replace lithium in a very short period of time. BYD in China is already using them in cars.

They have many significant advantages over lithium. One of them being the ignition problem.

The biggest issue is trusting the collector of this personal information with the information.

Most do not trust big tech. How will this information be used to exploit me in the future.
Few trust the government with my personal information and app / internet usage.

The general thought that drove the bill is that if the os holds the personal information the informatikn can then be seperated from big tech/gov from the appli ation owners. This should i theory protect the leakage of personal information.

This falls apart quickly however. As big tech owns the os in most cases. There are no standards or compliance requirements that govern what can be collected and how it is managed. So over reach in data collection is likely and expected.

In addition not all users are interactive.

Lastly any data collection method will certainly be defeated in moments.

More effort needs to be put into standards around identity and identity attribute management. So that laws can be based on accepted standards rather than vague wishful thinking ideas.

ISP Routers are typically locked such that the end user update the firware. And if they could the process is often extremely difficult for even technically minded people.

In some cases the ISP installs very specific software to do other things.

Example: In Australia Telstra issues routers that create and entire second network on the router. Which allows them to setup roaming wifi connections that the ISP subscriber can use. So a subscriber can walk around town and never lose their wifi. As the simply are hoping between routers stashed in homes/business/public access points.

Other companies put software on the routers to implement tracking networks that constantly scan for wifi and bluetooth broadcast identifiers etc. Then they send this data to the mother ship to create air tag like functionality.

So the problem is now bigger. Not only can't you just simple as a user update to OpenWRT, The ISP is often now stuck with the problem of migrating functionality to a complete new device / OS with little time to implement it.

Note ISP's do not retain the Intelectual property any more for these addon services. They claim they do but generally these things are implemented by contractors or vendors and the knowledge of how to actually put it all together is generally lost. So this makes it even harder to migrate to a "US" made router.

And on top of that internent subscribers do not upgrade their routers often. They are used untill they break or are bricked or the subscriber changes provider. This time line is usually well over 5 year time frames.

So moving to OpenWRT is very unlikely on mass. ( I actually run OpenWRT on multiple devices and I'll likely never go back to a vendor supply router software stack again. )

Apple is like many other companies right now especially tech.

The obvious hits like:
oil (base ingredient in a lot of tech.)
mem and storage chips being reserved for AI buildouts. ( Chip runs years in advance are being purchased already. )
Supplier chains also jacking up prices.
Supplly chains having induced delays. Restricting product volumes.
Tarifs in USA and now around the world.

The problem is that all of these actual hits will be converted into margin once these pressures subside. This is when price godging will really kick in.

Net impact is yet another massive hit to inflation globally. It'll take another decade at least for wages to catch up if they ever do.

The upside is that the price of housing will finally flatline or even retreat across the globe. As people are constantly pushed lower on the property / prosperty ladders.

Moving parts is the curse on durability.

Todays phones have 0 moving parts. If you exclude the external buttons for volume and power etc.

Moving parts are point of failure. Moving parts almost always point to a point of dust/liguid intrusion. Moving parts are extensive to build assemble and maintain.

Rollables as designed currently are a mess of moving parts. And in this LG phone case. Motorised moving parts. Which is even worse.

I don't really think you will see a rollable until almost all moving parts are gone. The only way I see them working is if you get a screen that literally rolls up all by itself. No extra casing, mechanisms etc. Just the screen that rolls up into tube around a solid core body. To do this the durability of the screen needs to improve vastly. The structural regidity needs to be a core attribute of the screen not the thing holding the screen.

And to top it all off it has to be cheap. Lets face if a rollable is going to wear out much faster than a modern gorilla glass phone. So replacement cycles are going to be much quicker. People will not shell out $3000 every 6-12 months for a phone. ( I acknowledge the apple cult does have a subset of people that do this. )

When I first started in IT at the Enterprise level many many years ago I use HPUX for developing telephony software. At the time we used HPUX as a Command and control of our systems. It was also used to develop software for the Motorola 68020 switching systems.

HPUX was not actually a multithreaded OS then. It had fake threads implemented with interrupts. This caused us no end of grief at the time. All of these low level hacks to ensure that things didn't lock up. We needed something that could handle real time systems. HPUX was not it. But we made it work.

( Side bar, We did code reviews on paper from dot matrix printers. The printers were always inside sound proofed boxes they were so loud. )

On top of that we had to make our interface work in the god awful CDE UI environment. Meta-Meta hell.

Solaris/SunOS at the time was light years ahead.

Then in the early 2000's the move to RHEL was on. Finally we could make clustered environments with fault tolerance. RHEL may not have been the most stable at the time. But we finally had the tools to build clusters that would blink an eye when a node went down. In the HPUX days, this was a pipe dream. The OS and the tools just didn't exist.

Now things have moved on to the next level of with containers and very light weight Linux based containers. Which is a good thing.

Rewinding the clock. back to those early days. What we were really trying to implement was what we know as containers today. We wanted systems that we could maintain deploying small updates frequently and having zero interruptions. This contained cloud style environments is what we really wanted back then. Of course we didn't know all what was needed to make that happen.

Long story short. I hated HPUX. It was horrible to code for. And the code was simply not portable unless we put in 5x the work.

When using AI to quickly mock up small chunks of code I find it an accelerator. And I do mean small.

But when code scales up simple systems or API's it falls apart pretty quickly. As the scale of the system grows the requirements grow even faster. GDPR, PII, FIRB, NIST, all start to pile up on as code bases grow. AI lacks the understand of the "business" need. So you get this blob of code out and then you have to spend large amounts of time understanding it so you can re-factor it because the AI engine missed the mark by even a small amount.

In addition I find AI code generation lacks the ability to plan for the future. What potential use cases will come up next week, month, year. And this in flexibility means the code base has to be essentially tossed in the bin. It's even worse when you think about the impacts on you dataset. You effectively can't adapt over time. The code effectively is locked because your data set is your business.

Then there is the problem with conforming to standards. AI code simple sucks at this. You'll have 95% conformance and basic testing often comes out totally successful but those 5% edge cases fall apart.

So I find AI useful for doing the drudge work. Even some of the simple logic work. But I rarely let AI work outside of the context of a single function/method. It can be a decent time saver when I keep it simple.

Unfortunately the very platforms that kids use to "chat" are the ones with the most protection tools in place. They may not be very good but most of the platforms have some tools. Kids will simply find a means around the block or migrate on mass to other chat tools as they sprint up. Leaving kids even more exposed than before. And with even less oversight for protection.

Kids move fast. Far faster than their parents.

All this law will do is push kids into more and more unregulated spacex with more and bigger dangers.

This was not the solution. This was a knee jerk reaction to gain votes.

More must be done on the platforms the kids like to use not drive them into the dark alleys of the internet.

SaaS
- For at least the big tech bro companies SaaS is all about them owning your data. Almost impossible to pull it out. The cost of doing so exceeds the ever rising cost of maintaining the service. Over time you ability to even govern your data is eroded as well.

AI
- Well huge risks here. You data isn't even remotely stored in formats that you are used to. The AI model is effectively hardwired to your data over time. If the AI model is replaced or enhanced or what have you and poof. You data can easily be corrupted, changed or lost. Numerous cases of this already.
- Also there is AI delusions. Fake data, bad interpretations, errors, etc.
- Letting AI make decisions for you with out vetting is basically asking for trouble.
- There is no security model for AI as of yet. This is completely uncharted waters here. We haven't even begun to explore the security, privacy, integrity aspects associated with AI systems. You will get burned at somepoint on a security front.

SaaS can be very bad. It takes a strong IT oversite to make sure you don't lose access to your data over time. But there is maturity enough in the industry that this is still possible with effort.

AI is very bad at the moment. It's a very risky proposition with the likelihood of being burned very high. But with risk the payoffs can be huge. I think the prediction of 18 months before this space solidifies is ignores the greater issues surrounding AI.

I don't think we have found the sweet spot for AI tools yet. The whole AI revolution is very young.