I wish captchas were a thing of the past. I run across them routinely. Had one presented on X yesterday and GOG regularly makes me "solve" one. The GOG ones are terrible. They are of the "click on all photos with a crosswalk/bus/bicycle" variety. And you run into issues like, "do they consider that a bus or not?" or "I can't quite make out whether there's a crosswalk at that corner or not because it's not 100% clear." And don't get me started on the ones with a photo broken down into a grid and you have to click on all of the panels that contain a bus (what's the fascination with buses???). Does that mean that if there's a single pixel that has part of the bus' bumper on it is a panel with the bus in it? The worst.

Spam, spam, spam, eggs and spam didn't provide enough incentive to try to distinguish between humans and skin jobs, but now "AI slop" does? Ok, great!

Check the OpenPGP signature.

Unsigned? /dev/null.

Signed but no trust path? /dev/null

Signed and with a trust path? Can still be trash, but its claims to be of human origin, are worth taking seriously. If you find a problem (e.g. someone trusted the wrong person) then deal with that then.

Even if the people who know how didn't move on over the last few decades, surely they would have been fired some time in the last few months as part of the overall effort to weaken the US economy, health, and defenses.

Is there anyone left who knows how to do the job? Can they be hired back, after the Epstein shutdown is over?

Apple could just stop being evil.

Problem: adversary has you in a headlock.

Solution: wait for the adversary to change allegiance.

This sure sounds like something that can be completely solved by getting a new account. But then there's this hilarious excuse for insisting that the problem remain:

Although users can "abandon the accounts and start again with new Apple IDs," the report notes that doing so means losing all purchased apps, along with potentially years' worth of photos and videos.

If there's any risk of losing photos and videos, then they should already be working on fixing their backup system immediately, before something bad happens. This isn't so much a problem as a wake up call that they haven't yet done one of the most basic first-things in using computers: get data backups going.

Loss of access to an external data storage account is just one of the risks they aren't protecting themselves against, with regard to that data. (And geez, since they're already cloud-storage enthusiasts, what was their plan for what they were going to do if they ever found a better cloud provider?)

As for proprietary apps: same problem, they already faced the risk even without this parental splitup. Either stop doing that, or accept that you occasionally have to repurchase your proprietary software. Given how much crap is monthly subscriptions now, I suspect there's very little loss here anyway, since having to continuously repay is already the status quo for an increasing number of .. [sighing and trying to remember to be nice] .. inexperienced computer users.

But if it's not (yay! it shouldn't be), then either suck it up that you have to re-do a "one-time" purchase, or [gasp] contact the manufacturer of that software and tell them the problem.

Oh, it's some company who is unresponsive or says "fuck you, pay me?" Well, then you're the one who decided to do business with an unresponsive company. You were already fucked and just hadn't run into the already-looming disaster anyway. Glad you're learning about how stupid that was while you're a teenager instead of later, when the stakes are going to be even higher.

All objections to "get a new account" are bullshit. And worse, they just point out problems that these people can/get-to/should face now, before anything bad happens.

The best way to innovate in gaming is to have..

.. more game-makers.

Kids, become a programmer. You can write games yourself, or you can join an existing project. There are many to choose from, but also, there's always room for one more.

a high accident rate will cause them to get less rich

I'm reminded of a scene from one of my favorite movies:

[ED-209 kills someone]

Dick Jones: "I'm sure it's only a glitch. A temporary setback."

The Old Man: "You call this a glitch?! We're scheduled to begin construction in six months. Your "temporary setback" could cost us fifty million dollars in interest payments alone!"

For sure. And that's why I think it's important to distinguish harm caused despite good intentions and reasonable practices being followed from harm caused because someone did not follow reasonable practices or actively chose to cut corners.

Just my personal opinion, but given the track record in this particular industry, I think there should be demonstrable intent by decision-makers to follow good practices, not merely a lack of evidence of intent to circumvent or cut corners. This is expected in other regulated industries, compliance failures are a big deal, and for good reason. I see no reason why similar standards could not be imposed on those developing and operating autonomous vehicles, and every reason they should be given the inherent risks involved.

Maybe this will be an area where the US simply gets left behind because of the pro-car and litigious culture that seems to dominate discussions there.

Reading online discussions about driving -- admittedly a hazardous pastime if you want any facts to inform a debate -- you routinely see people from the US casually defending practices that are literally illegal and socially shunned in much of the world because they're so obviously dangerous. Combine that with the insanely oversized vehicles that a lot of drivers in the US apparently want to have and the car-centric environments that make alternative ways of getting around much less common and much less available, and that's how you get accident stats that are already far worse than much of the developed world.

But the people who will defend taking a hand off the wheel to pick up their can of drink while chatting with their partner on a call home all while driving their truck at 30mph down a narrow road full of parked cars past a school bus with kids getting out are probably going to object to being told their driving is objectively awful and far more likely to cause a death than the new self-driving technologies we're discussing here. You just don't see that kind of hubris, at least not to anything like the same degree, in most other places, so we might see more acceptance of self-driving vehicles elsewhere too.

IMHO the only sensible answer to is separate responsibility in the sense that a tragedy happened and someone has to try to help the survivors as best they can from responsibility in the sense that someone behaved inappropriately and that resulted in an avoidable tragedy happening in the first place.

It is inevitable that technology like this will result in harm to human beings sooner or later. Maybe one day we'll evolve a system that really is close to 100% safe, but I don't expect to see that in my lifetime. So it's vital to consider intent. Did the people developing the technology try to do things right and prioritise safety?

If they behaved properly and made reasonable decisions, a tragic accident might be just that. There's nothing to be gained from penalising people who were genuinely trying to make things better, made reasonable decisions, and had no intent to do anything wrong. There's still a question of how to look after the survivors who are affected. That should probably be a purely civil matter in law, and since nothing can undo the real damage, the reality is we're mostly talking about financial compensation here.

But if someone did choose to cut corners, or fail to follow approved procedures, or wilfully ignore new information that should have made something safer, particularly in the interests of personal gain or corporate profits, now we're into a whole different area. This is criminal territory, and I suspect it's going to be important for the decision-makers at the technology companies to have some personal skin in the game. There are professional ethics that apply to people like doctors and engineers and pilots, and they are personally responsible for complying with the rules of their profession. Probably there should be something similar for others who are involved with safety-critical technologies, including self-driving vehicles.

The perfect vs good argument is the pragmatic one for moral hazards like this. IMHO the best scenario as self-driving vehicles become mainstream technology is probably a culture like air travel: when there is some kind of accident, the priority is to learn from it and determine how to avoid the same problem happening again, and everyone takes the procedures and checks that have been established that way very seriously. That is necessarily going to require the active support of governments and regulators as well as the makers of the technology itself, and I hope the litigious culture in places like the US can allow it.

The companies like door dash etc do not care if you do not deliver. They list you anyway, pay full price for the food, slap a 35% fee on top and sell your food.

Then something doesn't add up. My understanding is that the fees that the delivery company charges the restaurant are what is hurting the restaurants. But if your restaurant doesn't have a contract with the delivery company (i.e. "they list you anyway") then that fee is $0, isn't it?

So what's the harm? It sounds like any fees the restaurants are paying, are something they've opted into.

I can see how bad experiences (caused by the delivery service which otherwise wouldn't have happened) could reduce order frequency, but that doesn't seem to be what people are talking about here.

How did "The Innovation That’s Killing Restaurant Culture" turn into "How Delivery Is Destroying American Restaurants?"

Reality denier. Your reality?

You sound communist.

The broader trend is that there is a self segregation taking place. I moved to Texas. I love it here. You can be a communist in California and enjoy it there.

The market will sort it out.