The small bit of nerd news is shadowed by the press release as comment.

I wish I could say I'm surprised.

However, this has been a consistent pattern that goes back to the 1930s and I wouldn't raise an eyebrow if you corected that to the 1830s. Companies know that you make the most money by selling to both sides.

It seems to me that, if you were developing something like this, you'd want to write the encryption and decryption code separately from the non-trivial key management code, so that you can unlock it easily if someone accidentally locks the wrong system. You only make the build that doesn't have an obvious key when you're really going to use it. For that matter, it's probably wise to do your demos with the version with the master key, so that potential affiliates can't attack a real target for the demo. Then you give the version that doesn't make it easy to unlock to paying affiliates who aren't SentinelOne. It's not like they'd need to redesign the whole system to generate a random key and not write it in plaintext anywhere.

Silicon wafers are the wrong thing to compare against. The CZT semiconductors are like photodiodes (for other radiation), not what they make the logic out of. It would make more sense to compare with InGaN (for blue LEDs), which plays a similarly specific role in common devices.

This will be great for Haiku, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD installs, there's not the remotest possibility there'll be binaries for these. Not because the software couldn't be ported, but because the sorts of people politicians hire to write software would never be able to figure out the installer.

I still can't get ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude to write a decent story or do an engineering design beyond basic complexity. They're all improving, but they're best thought of as brain-storming aids rather than actual development tools.

These days, the market is more trusting of the statement that better tools and processes require fewer employees to serve the same customers if you call that AI. If you get more of your customers to succeed in using your website or app to do what they need without having a human do anything for them individually, you don't need as many employees doing it. But the market doesn't want to hear that you can cut jobs because your website doesn't suck as much any more, so you say AI and they think you've done something futuristic when you've actually done something practical, and you're vague enough about it that the SEC can't say that you claimed to be doing something you're not.

ya basic, son

Social media has become a toxic dump. If you wouldn't allow children to play in waste effluent from a 1960s nuclear power plant, then you shouldn't allow them to play in the social media that's out there. Because, frankly, of the two, plutonium is safer.

I do, however, contend that this is a perfectly fixable problem. There is no reason why social media couldn't be safe. USENET was never this bad. Hell, Slashdot at its worst was never as bad as Facebook at its best. And Kuro5hin was miles better than X. Had a better name, too. The reason it's bad is that politicians get a lot of kickbacks from the companies and the advertisers, plus a lot of free exposure to millions. Politicians would do ANYTHING for publicity.

I would therefore contend that Australia is fixing the wrong problem. Brain-damaging material on Facebook doesn't magically become less brain-damaging because kids have to work harder to get brain damage. Nor are adults mystically immune. If you took the planet's IQ today and compared it to what it was in the early 1990s, I'm convinced the global average would have dropped 30 points. Australia is, however, at least acknowledging that a problem exists. They just haven't identified the right one. I'll give them participation points. The rest of the globe, not so much.

They could say no. No-one is stopping them.

You're right. Also a professional baseball player *could* put their bats down and just stand at the plate, but pointing out that it's physically possible is stupid, especially if your argument supporting that "They Can Just Do That" is that baseball players *should put their bats down*.

This is why such people shouldn't be in positions of power.

Again with the should. It's dumb saying "they can do something, but they won't, but they should" because it's a moot point. Yes, they could also write a press release that is an 80 page Star Trek fanfic set in the narrative universe of Mr Rogers. Nothing is stopping them. But what is the value of pointing out something they are physically capable of when even you seem to understand why they won't? It's just a completely meaningless observation, particularly since you couch it in phrasing that suggests it's just a simple easy thing to do? You're trying to have your argument both ways - it makes you sound simple.

I'll add to that Africa's geography is fucked... the coastline is old, smooth, and shallow which means you don't get many ports. On top of that, the African escarpment means that interior rivers tend to have huge rapids that are basically unnavigable. All of this greatly complicates logistics and hampers internal trade... for instance, getting minerals from the east Congo to the Atlantic requires ~9 different transports (e.g., switching back and forth between water and land vehicles). Europe and North America, by contrast, have an embarrassment of riches... loads of glacier-carved deep water ports, extensively navigable interior rivers, and (at least in the U.S.) lots of inter-coastal waterways.

Geography isn't the only thing that hindered Africa. Tropical diseases and the Tsetse fly also fucked things up pretty well by devastating livestock populations. Cattle means you can farm more land with fewer people (and fertilize it too), plus they're a food source. I'm sure there are other factors too, but these are big ones that would inhibit any would-be society.

This is why such people should never be in positions of power.

What you're trying to do here is deal with the world the way you think it should be, not the way it actually is. So saying, "You can just do this" if the world was the way you think is should isn't a particularly well supported assertion.

That's actually a good question. Inks have changed somewhat over the past 5,000 years, and there's no particular reason to think that tattoo inks have been equally mobile across this timeframe.

But now we come to a deeper point. Basically, tattoos (as I've always understand it) are surgically-engineered scars, with the scar tissue supposedly locking the ink in place. It's quite probable that my understanding is wrong - this isn't exactly an area I've really looked into in any depth, so the probability of me being right is rather slim. Nonetheless, if I had been correct, then you might well expect the stuff to stay there. Skin is highly permeable, but scar tissue less so. As long as the molecules exceed the size that can migrate, then you'd think it would be fine.

That it isn't fine shows that one or more of these ideas must be wrong.

"The whole point of this is because Waymo isn't supposed to make those mistakes,"

There is no whole point in such a complex issue, but I would like to tell this person that the idea is part of the argument for automated vehicles is they may make less mistakes. Perfection shouldn't be a condition for improvement.