I would assume places felt unsure they'd really get their data back by paying the scammers who locked their files down in the first place.

There are plenty of stories about people who paid the ransoms and never got their data unlocked afterwards.

If someone came along, pretending to be the good guy who could break the lock for you or your business? Wouldn't you prefer to pay THEM, rather than rewarding the criminal who created the problem in the first place?

It's at least notable that the plastics industry documented the possibility that microplastics were accumulating in the human body. But with there being such limited knowledge on what harm they do, if any, just by being there? I don't see why this would have sounded any alarms back as far as 1974?

Comparing this to cigarette manufacturers is a little disingenuous, IMO. That's an industry that encountered mounting evidence that smoking was doing harm and even killing people, yet they doubled-down, paying off researchers to try to find as much contrary evidence as possible to deny it.

It seems pretty logical that ANY substance we're exposed to can enter the human body, and many of those substances could stick around in a microscopic scale. The more important question is whether or not it matters from a health perspective. We developed some of our plastics BECAUSE they were inert materials, deemed fairly safe to use in the medical field (surgical tubing and so forth). Maybe that was a big mistake, but most of the concerns I hear voiced right now amount to wild guesses. "Look at the increase in things like obesity, or cancer! Maybe it's the microplastics!" There are MANY other possible causes in play, so jumping to the conclusion microplastics are the next cigarettes is .... unreasonable.

This helium crisis is nothing new. It's now 20 years since I wrote a column titled The looming helium crisis and little has changed.

One of the things people keep overlooking with skilled trades is the physical labor required. I know quite a few people with an I.T. career they're in largely because they have physical issues or limitations (bad back, for example) and it's not realistic for them to just hop over to a skilled trade like a plumber, where they're going to have to crawl under cabinets or into crawlspaces under porches all day long.

If you're still young, absolutely. It's not a bad time to consider a skilled trade to make a good living and escape the AI threat. But for the middle aged and older folks? Not always realistic.

This has always been the thing of science fiction (Star Trek universe being a great example). There's this idea that humanity will automate and invent so much technology that nobody has any work left to do.

In realty? Nobody on the planet has ever reached this point before in history, to prove it really happens.

All I *do* know is that in my own life experience, EVERY time I use a new tool or gadget that promises to save me time and make my life easier? Whatever time it saves is immediately claimed someplace else. In many instances, the claimed labor and time savings turns out to be artificial. (EG. I've owned several Roomba type robot vacuums. Even though each one I tried was an improvement over the old one? None have ever truly eliminated the time and labor I would have spent vacuuming by hand otherwise. What inevitably happens is they don't get certain areas clean enough, so I have to go back and deal with those myself. Then, they need maintenance and cleaning themselves, which requires a lot of time taking them apart and getting lint and hair unwound from places it wasn't supposed to be. Next, something wears out or breaks, costing me more money AND time to repair it or replace the worn part.)

I think all we might really see is some temporary pain around unemployment as we collectively re-think what kind of labor/work we still want to pay people to do.

AI clearly can't do ANYTHING physical, so that severely limits what jobs it can take from humans. Robotics can do physical tasks but we're still FAR from it handling random tasks that humans do easily. Our robots tend to be purpose-built. One may be able to scan inventory on store shelves, but it can't go clean up a spill in an aisle. Another may claim to do security duty but probably has to call in to humans if anything bad happens to it.

The bigger problem will be manhole covers on suburban streets. These will get sucked out of the road not only wrecking your Tesla but likely also endangering the traffic behind you. You can bet that this feature will be geofenced and only available on approved racetracks --which, for 99% of buyers, simply makes it useless and expensive payload.

The launch was a circus that PT Barnum would have been proud of.

A handful of specially built show-pony-cars that are ultra-light, only "flew" once (because they probably didn't have a big enough battery onboard to recharge those gas cylinders) and were the ultimate in Musk-level deceptions.

I'm going to do a full technical breakdown of all the reasons why what we saw was 100 percent marketing and why we will *never* see a Roadster 2 with the claimed specifications ever hit the market -- the laws of physics may be inconvenient but ignoring them is not an option.

What we saw in that demo was Musk, once again, coming up with a clever way to get hundreds of millions (perhaps more) of interest-free funding from people who slept through science classes in highschool. What's even more amazing is that this is the *second* time he's promised unrealistic deliveries, taken hundreds of millions in "reservations" and failed to deliver.

PT Barnum was so right.

And Musk also said "Manned colonies on Mars by 2024" and "Hyperloop" and "Fast transit tunnels beneath cities" and "Solar roof tiles" and a whole lot of other stuff to which the laws of physics and his engineers said "nope".

It's not the launch or even the jump that will be the problem... it's landing a 2+ ton car that is descending from several hundred feet above its apex and this has significant vertical speed. Even the gas-thrusters may have their work cut out for them :-)

No word about the real-world range of the Roadster 2.

I find it interesting that Musk can create a show-pony car that does cool tricks that nobody would ever allow on a road-legal car but he fails to address the elephant in the room: "How far will it go on a charge?"

Why did he ignore this crucial aspect of any EV?

Easy, because he originally claimed 1000Km and it is much easier to get a lightweight show-car to do jumping tricks than it is to deliver a real-world essential such as decent range.

The Roadster we saw in the display is just a stunt-car, road-legal production vehicles will be just another fast EV.

If people want to risk quarter of a million dollars reserving one then only one phrase springs to mind:

"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me".

Geez people.... Regardless of who is President, the issue here is worth taking a good look at. $2 billion is a LOT of money to burn through each year! And this is a program that arguably went FAR beyond what people expected it to do (ensuring libraries and schools had an afford Internet connection). Handing out free hotspots to people? Yeah ... I'd rather not fund THAT with my tax money. Just use free public wifi like the rest of us do.

Really, I think most of the hate comes from the way the self-checkout kiosks were handled and deployed. The systems themselves aren't so awful.

Hindsight is 20-20 and all that... but I think they should have only deployed them for the "12 items or less" type of express checkout. That would have helped acceptance and adoption. The people only trying to buy a few items are the ones prioritizing getting in and out quickly, even if it takes doing something differently than before.

Self-checkout gets exponentially frustrating when you have a lot of groceries like fresh foods where you can't just scan them. You've got to look them up on the touchscreen. That and purchases like alcohol where a human still has to check your ID before the process can complete.

Customers start feeling like they're doing a job that cashiers get hired for, so why aren't they getting a discount for it?

Your comment sounds like nothing more than another anti-Apple rant with no substance behind it.

Quite a bit of computer tech gets no real "second life" once the manufacturer decides it's no longer supported. It's insane to pretend this is an "Apple thing". Just going through my small pile of formerly useful e-waste, I'd point out such things as one of my old VoIP modems/routers, which was required for a residential VoIP service that's no longer in business. Looked into it to see about potentially re-flashing its firmware to "open source" it again, but came up empty.

iPads registered to users and impossible to unlock is no different than what happens with Samsung tablets, except using Google and Gmail accounts instead of Apple iCloud. If people could be trusted not to steal, this would never have become a thing. (If you can prove you were the original purchaser of a locked iPad or iPhone, there are ways to provide a copy of the sales receipt to Apple support's "unlock team" and they'll unlock the device again for you. I've had to do that before.)

I have a set of 5 Echo Dots around the house and ever since I "upgraded to Alexa+" -- it's a train-wreck. Sure, the AI gives much smarter answers to questions. But they continuously forget my preferences for the voice I chose for them to use. (My wife and I both prefer their "female 2, relaxed" voice, as most similar to the original and more "professional" sounding than the others.) But no, it keeps going back to a voice that sounds like a bubbly, annoying teenage girl. Worse yet, there's no way to set a voice as default for all devices. You have to go around changing it for each one independently.

And that's before all the creepy, info-stealing behavior it has. EG. Someone will come over and ask it a few questions. Next thing you know, it's asking them to share their name since it's a voice they don't recognize.

The private sector has a solution to all of this that "just works". You acknowledge the supply and demand. Swamped with public record requests? Great! Hire more people to handle them as their job description/title, and charge enough for them to cover their salaries or hourly contractor rates.

IMO, asking one group to pay $2.3 million for a records request is unreasonable. But why can't you ask all of them to pay a fair share so the process works smoothly and effectively for everyone involved? A qualified govt. contractor hired to fulfill FOIA requests is typically paid a midpoint salary of about $88K per year.