If recent history has taught us anything about security in modern tech startups, and combined with this part:
Hartz said. "Is it a machine that could take out a bad actor with a bullet or something?"
It will probably not take long for a bad actor to hack the system and turn it on the inhabitants using it.
Yeah. The only way to get rid of scalpers (same as scammers, spammers and the like): Don't buy from them.
The only reason scalpers exists to begin with is that people just want to be first and they don't care how they get there.
They jack up the prices on the thing you want?
Wait until it it's back available from official stores, or buy second hand from someone who actually bought it in error (which would mean less than original price, not more).
Or it can be solved by involving the government, like some places did during Covid, where it was a criminal offense to sell certain products above list-price. Selling the toilet paper for 3x the price? Well, off to jail with you.
I'm interested to see what they do when people let the ads play, but minimize the window it's playing in, and mute the audio output, pop another window OVER the ad, OR... just get up and go take a piss while the ads are playing, just like we did for DECADES when skipping them or blocking them wasn't possible when watching TV.
Be careful what you wish for....
Come on. Clippy is a legend, it's obvious the command would be named from it.
You want to talk about never learning from their mistakes, take it up with all the "Hi, what can I help you with?"-bots that keeps popping up on more and more websites.
I do wonder what the thought behind those were.
"Hey, remember the clippy thingie in Word? Let's take the most irritating feature from it and implement it on our website"
That sounds more like it's the app itself though, so it's a simple solution. Don't use it.
Always assume that third-party messaging and phone apps can (and probably do) use the data in order to make money.
You suspect someone reading your sms or listening to your calls? They most certainly could.
Sometimes I miss the good old days where the only ones you had to trust were the government/carriers, but now any app you install could theoretically access the calls/sms, and in particular voice/messaging apps since you actually give them access to it.
Maybe you're on to something.
Perhaps it's nothing devious at all, only a test-run of space-based solar power that went wrong.
What lock-in?
A quick look in the Apple Photo app:
> Select all photos, select Export Original (or Share on iPhone) and do whatever you want with the photos.
iCloud is a nice feature for automatically syncing between Mac and iPhone, or offload from the iPhone storage, but it's neither required nor necessary. And it is easy to export/share from the photo app.
Apple may be guilty of a lot of lock-ins, but not in this case.
You're definitely not atypical.
tbh. I don't understand why there is an option to load remote content at all. If you want to make a nice html mail there is no problem attaching images.
In my opinion, the only reason the remote content support even exist is to track the receipient, even if it's only a simple did-read notification, ok, granted, some Mail-apps seem to use a regular webviewer for the email, which automatically allow all remote content and other attack vectors normally not supported in a mail with no option to turn them off.
How I miss the days when people actually sent proper text emails and follow RFC 1855,
and while I'm in complaining mode, what's up with the mail-clients that try to turn emails into messaging? ok, I guess that's one way to solve "Hey, let's quote all previous replies from the beginning of time in the mail" but still.
Hell, WhatsApp itself is likely a clone of a bog standard open source XMPP client, but made closed source.
Not that unlikely. For us that're old enough to remember the good ol' days can probably recollect that both Facebook Messenger and Google Talk used XMPP. Facebook doesn't use it anymore though (guess they didnt' really like the idea that anyone could use any client outside of their control), not sure about Google Talk, if it still exists at all.
It is a nice protocol and cloning an already existing client lessens the development time so less moral companies might use that as a shortcut to release their own closed client.
Wouldn't you want it the other way around? A high false negative rate allows infectious people to go about in public under the false assurance that they are not sick, at great harm to the public. A high false positive rate OTOH only results in quarantining some people who aren't sick as if they are sick, and the harm is limited to those individuals. If you want to err on the side of safety, you want to tune your tests to have as close to a zero false negative rate as possible, even if that makes the false positive rate spike. Preventing one sick person from going about and potentially infecting others prevents more harm, than quarantining several people who are not sick.
I think it depends on which side you're on. As a health care professional and probably most people, a high false positive is preferable because of what you say. Then we have the unscrupulous business owners and others that just want people to get back to work and their normal lives no matter how many gets sick and dies
I don't know how those tests work, but I can imagine that a false negative is easier to get than a false positive. I assume that the tests work by testing the presence of something in the blood (be it anti-bodies, t-cells, the actual virus or whatever) and if the blood contains a very low amount of those it can have problem detecting it, thus giving a false negative. A false positive however would need to detect the presence of the substance but fail to quantify it to know if it's still there or just leftovers.
This might also be the reason for Musks results. If the particles tested in his blood is at the limit of what the test can detect it could produce this kind of result.
And that could be a design flaw in the test, if I recall correctly it only gives you a positive or a negative, while what it really should do is return a number that the medical examiner could interpret.
and if you do I'd suggest keeping quiet about it because if your boss finds out they are going to fire you and hire the people you hire because they are clearly a lot cheaper and can do your job.
There has been at least one article here on Slashdot with people who did just that in real life. I don't remember if the article mentioned what happened with that person (the article doesn't seem to work at the moment), but I were to guess the outcome would be just like you said
That is true. Some measurements to make sure that the knowledge comes from the right place is probably necessary, but as extensive as in the article is ridiculous.
A part of me would want to believe that the students wouldn't cheat because if the tests are done correctly they would realise it is for their own good. But at the same time I know from experience that if we had put in the same effort and ingenuity to cheat into studying we wouldn't have had to cheat
But even so, some people will always try to fool the system, and short of putting the student isolated in a faraday cage or something they will always manage.
If they can figure out ways to cheat in a classroom with observers they can figure out how to do it in their own home, so I believe the best way is still to change the tests (and possibly the entire teaching experience) so there is no need to cheat.
"For a male and female to live continuously together is... biologically speaking, an extremely unnatural condition." -- Robert Briffault
