Sounds about right, we all know the EU hates free speech and expression.

Zero chance of that. There are enough bad actors who will stuff their apps with loot boxes, pay to win nonsense, and micro payments galore, without the friction of Apple's haircut that people will quickly understand that '!' means fully-enshitified.

There might be handful of big players like Amazon for kindle books and whatnot where people will look past it but after a few months I am sure exactly nobody will take a chance on unknown developers with '!' on their app.

Well they are looking at it wrong. There is not earthly penalty that we can apply to a single individual mass murderer that would be an eye for an eye.

Again if revenge was truly the object we might try to satisfy ourselves by 'torturing' them to death intentionally. We could for example crucify them; but we don't. We go to great lengths to minimize their suffering, even if that sometimes fails.

It is not 'prettying it up' death is very final and people viscerally understand it. Society should not have be haunted by some of these killers, nobody should have to worry if OBL would some how escape imprisonment and attack again. The state and society have both a right and an interest in these extreme cases of making sure that person will never again act on this earth.

If it was about revenge we'd be doing things like we did them in the 15th century, skinning people alive and what not. The death penalty is NOT about revenge, it is about a mixture of deterrence and closure.

I agree with your assessment of the death penalty as it is currently practice in a lot of ways. I think it way way over used. I think the errors and bias in our legal process make its finality far to problematic, in the general case of application ... however..

I do think it has a place in deterrence with regard to things like terrorism and in closure when it comes to society moving past monstrous crimes. The standard of harm should be like this person threatened the feeling of security, safety, and faith in society. The standard of evidence should more than the usual reasonable doubt standard it should be something like, putting aside time travel and shape shifting space aliens, there is no doubt.

I don't think there was anything immoral about killing Osama Bin Laden, or sentencing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to die as examples. I would say the same about many of the school shooters (when they were adults at the time of the crime), people that have shot up places of worship, attacked military bases, bombed federal buildings, and other mass murderers. In these cases where we know 'who' beyond any legitimate doubt, that represent attacks not just on individuals, groups, but our society as a whole I think the state is entirely justified in executing the perpetrators of these crime (as humanely as possible) so the rest of us can move on.

Here like a lot of places when some said tariff or when someone says Taiwan or supply chain, there is big fear reactions, oh noes our entire economy will grind to a halt if we don't have chips on the very latest process at bargain prices.

Nope not even a little. The first thing we can do is simply stretch the hardware refresh cycle. Maybe the games won't be happy but those computers on the desks of wall street offices down to the ones running the shop floor don't suddenly quit working because they are 2, 5, or 10 years old. Windows does not suddenly stop working either, and Microsoft is plenty capable patching an older OS, or making new releases that run on present generation hardware if the market tells them - people are not going to buy new kit, or reality tells them the new kit isn't getting faster.

It does not mean innovation, new features, and new capabilities have to come to a grinding halt either, Software has a lot of room to get better if we invest more into optimizing its use of hardware. That will cost more $$, some of which might be offset but just extending the life of existing assets, and some of it might not be if we have to build stuff using process that isn't as good as TSMC.

All he is saying is the sky does not fall, the software industry is not strictly tied to the current hardware refesh cycle, it is simply the case that the market has seen more value is investing in every more powerful hardware rather than in ever more efficient software. In the end it is no differnet than your hot water tank, first we just used more gas, then gas got expensive so we started investing in more insulation on them, now that has hit diminishing returns we moving from burners to heat pumps. We *can* move on from just 'moar compute' it is just the market hasn't decided we are ready, yet.

The marketing people will no doubt overstate the importance, of doing this stuff. It is after all in their interest to do so. Advertising, messaging, and branding however do matter, I think that is obvious even if it is difficult to put a precise dollar figure on the impacts.

Tastes and aesthetics change, over time. A brand like Google wants to be seen as if not forward looking at least cutting edge. The aesthetic of the early 2000s at least in the tech world was "simple, clean, functional" It was I think an unfortunate reaction to the often excessive and functionally limiting Skeuomorphism of the late 80s and 90s where vastly more capable machines were trickling down to the masses who wanted interfaces that were familiar or thought they did. In a lot of ways it was like Brutalist architecture, a sad an uninspired over reaction and rejection of the decco and Victorian aesthetics it was replacing. That gave us a boring colored 'G'.

It sucks, the old G sucked, the new G with a gradient sucks; it is dullsville. It does not make me more interested in Google, it isnt even especially recognizable or stand out, it is just a colored letter, lots of logos are just colored letters.. Part of the problem is they don't use it consistently either, go to home page and they still have something nearer to their original logo right there in the center, "Google" spelled out with each letter a different solid color, including the G. I hope this is an incremental step toward something with some real visual interest, and design elements. I realize that for continuity reasons this might be a stop along the way. Hopefully the willingness to change it at all suggest the marketing team realize the 'G' isn't really all that 'iconic' and without context like appearing on the side of netbook, or on a browser tab, i am not even sure a rainbow colored G, makes most people thing 'Google' immediately.

As other have pointed out gradients translate badly to print media, but Google as brand might be overly worried figuring few of the customers and investors are reading about them on dead trees.

See that is the problem. Literally the only way to fix the economic imbalances or for these jobs to go undone. Until the shelves are bare at the discount retailer consumers are not going pay more anywhere else. Until the Apple's don't have iPhones to put in pretty white boxes and mark up 100x and the Chrysler's havent got cars for deal lots they are not going pay people what it takes to motivate them to do those 'shitty manufacturing jobs'

The harsh reality here is 'white-color' work is going to shrink a lot in the coming decades from both outright automation and massively increased productivity, in all but the most technically challenging that not everyone can do and their is only so much need for. We can't all be designing ICs for example. There just isn't a need.

It isn't the Jetson's future everyone dreamed about of that is coming. Sadly the computers are going to sit and write poetry and it is going to be us humans, picking the berries, doing the animal husbandry, doing the final assembly and handling of product, wiping the asses of those who cant, and very likely even digging the ditches. Real economic power isnt going to the nation that has the most college grads, its going to go to the capacity to produce things people need, be that food, masks, plastic whatevers, mobile phones etc. Moreover it isn't going to be going to who has the highest tech/best version either. The future belongs to 'good enough, in abundant quantity'

We have already I suspect past the specialization dividend, in most of the western world. Right now we have highly educated, well fed, citizens that society sunk a lot of resources into developing, brewing coffee for other people. Oh sure you can 'fight for 15' or whatever and pay them more do that but at the end of the day the activity just does not generate more economic value than what was invested in the person doing it, over their working lifetime. it will not be sustainable, you can't trade the output for some Asian goods.

In order to have the economy continue to function we have make people pay more for the activities that actual generate value, real tangible value, food on tables, roofs over heads, making tools to facilitate that stuff. We need people to WANT that work, and they will only want it if it offers them a decent lifestyle. We have de-specialize. Because for the last 30 years or so Asia has been nearly as productive as the west, but the costs were lower, consumers enjoyed some benefit yes, but most of the difference went to 1%. The western middle class shrank, the Asian middle class grew, and now the arbitrage factor will shrink. China is going to raise prices if we don't tariff them first, maybe not for decade but it is coming. When that happens the Great Depression is going to look like a party!

That might be true if you were actually doing the other high value economic activity.

The problem is we are not doing it. We have low unemployment but there is a ton of under-employment. We have big GDP number because it basically counts spending but if you look at the deficit, we don't have the income to offshore those other activities not and justify it.

In your analogy it is more like you're an account who makes $300/hr but you only have clients for a few hours of a week. The rest of the time you're standing around wanking for lack of anything else to do. It would definitely be a good time investment on your part to cut your own hair because you haven't got the income to support your lifestyle, 25/hr might seem like peanuts but when your borrowing the 25 from your mom to pay for it, who is the loser here? Not the hair dresser.

Everyone of the Dollar Store dreamers here posting knows exactly what will happen. We will continue buying Chinese crap and non-crap alike while they invade our ally, and a legitimate democracy is destroyed by an authoritarian regime.

Just like how Europe shook their fist real hard and continued buying Russian petrol and gas, and Ukraine kept transiting said petrol while Russia invaded them.

The anti-tariff crowed successfully cowed the president. I hope they are proud of themselves, because this was probably Taiwan's last hope for continued independence and America's last chance to not be the UK of the 1950s, over as a world power. But hey you get your cheap plastic toys, and video games, so all good right!

Trump should have decoupled damn the short term consequences, actually he should spiked the ball and done something to provoke a real cold-war type conflict so the next guys in power could not do a reset. Because we all know a little economic chop will likely cause a loss of the house, and then he gets impeached (again).

"I hate Trump" is not much of an argument.

Bullshit. Honestly this sounds like a rich guys worst night mare to me. Note I say rich guy, not very rich guy.

Mistakes on the trivial forms like 1040A and EZ are caught already. Anyone doing the long form is probably at least using Tax software. Software does not make mistakes on Line 40 Box C, unless you incorrectly entered the information in the first place. In which case you might be a felon after all you signed the form at the end which says 'to the best of your knowledge this information is truthful and..." or something to that effect? I mean you did check your work right?

Most people working in side the 9 dots, w2 and mixture of 1099 income, the standard deduction, and a credit or two, are not going to be affected at all.

Its exactly the guy with the tax accountant (not lawyer level rich) where all the grey areas exist like was the at really an allowable business expense for his S-corp or not? He changed his primary residence this year from the NY penthouse to the FL beach house, and is claiming the energy credits for the new HVAC he put in. Did really spend enough days in the FL residence for that to be allowed? Wow that 1099B is 250 pages long, he is using a mixture of cost basis methods, is he apply the data rules on these option assignments correctly each time? [This is the guy who I think has things to worry about] AI is going to be a lot better at spotting the anomalies and excessively favorable (as in disallowed) innocent and not-so innocent interpretation of the more ambiguous tax rules.

Interesting that it is 'California' colleges, might that be because at the core here what we have is an identity management problem, and CA seems to be categorically opposed to any form of strong identity capability?

How much of this fraud is directly related to someone in the state, not wanting to "disenfranchise" some illegal aliens by requiring proper documentation?

Note that does not have to imply or require its the illegals doing the fraud, just the weak identity controls to accommodate them enabling it.

wow, that's even dumber than Imagined. If they mean critical vulnerabilities, why not just say that. You'd still have people asking 'critical by what definition' but then you could point to CVSS, a widely accepted framework/standard, and I think most would go 'ok'.

but to just redefine zero-day, to mean something completely different that has nothing to do with time, is just mind-blowing level stupid..

I don't even know what 0-day patch is, I understand what 0-day vulnerability is.

Do they mean you can use patches for vulnerabilities that were disclosed before your support contract ended but the patch was issued after?
Makes not sense

Being different does not mean you get out of having to conform if you want to belong to a society. Just because someone only needs to sleep 4 hours a night does mean everyone in the neighborhood should be just ok with them turning on a bunch of bright lights and running a lawn mower at 11:30PM.

Generalize that as you like