I was going to say that, but with punctuation.

A somewhat overlooked point: the 600 year old Ottoman Empire fell in WWI.

New powers decided the new borders.

Some years ago I used to believe that Britain was a sensible country. And I'd have agreed with your general sentiments.

But something about globalization -- and I just don't know enough to know what to call it or why it's happening -- perhaps it's something about establishing a new global multipolar world, or a global government which then creates the opportunity for one superpower to take more control over everyone else...

But since globalisation, we've started having all of this -- and the average level of things has been turning more authoritarian.

For example, the comment about doctors' advice being from real doctors etc -- maybe that was true 60 years ago, but everything is so under the influence of corporations now -- it just stopped being true quite some time ago.

This opinion is based on watching one or two health matters develop over the last 20 years, and at first the scientists were saying we just need to show this and that evidence, and then when they showed it they said, well we just need to get the authorities to see this as well, but then that just never happened, the authorities were obviously not serving science. (That's not meant to convince anyone, that's just to say my opinion isn't based on one blog I read last Tuesday).

So it's not run by the people, it's not for the people. I don't know what's running things, it's probably something to do with globalization.

Our old ideas about what's British are long gone. Although I do tend to think that there is a kind of cultural memory, the Magna Carta 800 years ago, etc. But post-modern thought has convinced everyone that there are no truths, so even the tradition of individual freedom is being watered down.

And with so much rapid migration these days, to and from and all over the world, and don't just mean people, but especially, money and corporate systems flowing, not to mention geopolitics, endless wars, all the "trans-national" influences and power games...

I think if anything the world is going to settle on a common ground, which if you look at China and Russia and emerging things in Africa, that common ground is going to be much more authoritarian for everybody, because that's the average held by billions of people, and as we let go of "British" identity and habits, we'll merge into the wider global authoritarian patterns, except now backed by high tech infrastructure.

Britain is just too small to matter in that respect. So yes, Digital ID is going to come. They've been pushing it for decades. And everyone who's pushing for it, has the big bucks. It's inevitable.

The question is, what will the world look like then?

I think it's very similar for me in the sense that it just works.

And there are of course many pros and cons. There are some very nicely thought out apps for Macs, however, mobileme was a disaster, etc.

The hardware just lasts a long time.

The inconsistent UI on Windows drives me nuts, and to the extent that macOS is inconsistent that also annoys me, but it's much better overall.

The pros and cons are going to be a very long list.

But I've using Macs for quite a long time, and once Mac OS X came along in 2001, well, everything works and keeps working.

The hardware and software doesn't develop problems over time.

You can turn off almost all the iCloud stuff if you want.

And we have launchd (LOL).

And I'm sure people who know Windows or Linux can run it well, or have more specific needs.

But if you're married to macOS, it's not a bad thing generally.

Yes but SaaS marketed straight to staff as free has completely broken admins control. Sadly.

Sounds like, "move fast, break things, be fragile."

I guess there is just a huge amount of utility in doing this which everyone is willing to go with, and security concerns are just accepted and to some extent ignored, because why try to set up a system that is more careful and assured, when the problems might not show up for years.

And just to be clear, I'm commenting on incentives and the relatively small number of people in positions of authority at a corporation or a client who would be in a position to make a decision to keep this quiet. I'm not talking about the average ethical person who just wants to do the right thing -- they may want to, but they'll be under pressure by the perverse incentive structure. And it's speculative whether there has been any actual breach or any wider impacts. It's just a scenario.

I think you have a good point.

It's yet another example of human systems which are affected by perverse incentives.

I can't think of anyone in this situation who would want the truth to be known... if they have found evidence that this has been exploited.

And after all, any security researcher or hacker would have been focusing on trying to find poor validation logic, amongst other things -- it's not some counterintuitive side channel.

I really can't think of anyone who'd really want it to be known that this had turned out to be a huge compromise with a big blast radius.

Not the mega corp, not any of their clients, not the security services, not the investors, nobody, nobody would want it to be known that all their base in Azure belong to someone else.

Yes, exactly, this is it.

In this case, it dug up something on a company website, and then I could go read the real information there.

True, there's a huge downside to being fed the answer.

I do spend a lot of time looking at virtually random stuff, anything that just seems interesting. What is maybe more alarming about AI isn't the job replacement scenario, but the killing of creativity and synthesis.

Being able to talk to the computer to ask it to find things based on meanings is like Star Trek technology and it's sad in a way that the hype is distracting from what they're good at. For example, yesterday I had a problem (not tech but a field I know nothing about (oh wait like tech then)) and the first AI search I did gave me an excellent find. Maybe I would have found it after spending all day browsing, but this was a great answer. And what about when we were supposed to wait for the semantic web and all that. So it's a bit sad it gets hyped as being able to replace people.

I think different.

Yes, and not just functional but I doing it detracts from the emotional experience for the user.

I have an older iPad which is light and thin and wonderful and all that, except it has a protruding camera. It won't sit flat on a table. I dare not rest my hand on the screen whilst writing because I don't know how much or little force is needed to bend the pad given there's this protrusion in one corner.

And why should I wrap it in a thick case when the back is already metal?

I find it totally stupid.

I find it incredibly ugly (I am an iPhone user).

I don't like notches in screens either. It's a stupid aesthetic and functional lie.

Oh and the daft Apple TV remote that's too slippery, plus it's hard to tell which way up it is.

I've tended to be a fan of Apple for their design, and that also means I kinda hate them when they screw up the design.

Design is about compromises but don't make the wrong compromises.

Thanks, ok, point taken. :)