Why would anyone rely on this for transportation?

"Only in areas it considered the safest [...] plans to avoid bad weather, difficult intersections, and will not carry anyone below the age of 18."

"Riders may not always be delivered to their intended destinations or may experience inconveniences, interruptions, or discomfort related to the Robotaxi ..."

At best a novelty and probably closed down within months as they get up to legal status.

How many public tests of these vehicles have been done on ice? I suspect it's less than you think. My belief is that they take them off the road in certain weather conditions. I could be wrong, but what I know about the limitations I will stick with that assumption until proven different.

You know who I don't trust and have zero confidence in long term? Big corporations who start out with the motto "don't be evil" and then slowly roll that back and fade it into the bushes Homer Simpson style while they enshittify every single one of their products. You know whose driving I trust? My own. You know whose driving I don't trust? Everyone else on the road. Of course every driver probably feels the same way. :) At least I know an autonomous vehicle is not distracted by their mobile phone. There is that.

I'm not talking about flooding or big snowstorms. I'm talking about heavy but manageable rain and just normal snowfall. Go back and look at the research on autonomy and weather. It's not favorable. Again, I repeat, there is a reason why these companies are choosing sunbelt locations.

Good question. I honestly don't know. But guaranteed in the rain, where such things are a lot less apparent, they just blast through them. I wonder whether the axle, wheel, and alignment costs are relatively higher for such vehicles on a per mile basis.

Not only that, but I guarantee that they are rendered helpless in some of those famous "Texas Flood" rainstorms ... and in snow. Weather has always been the achilles heel of self-driving vehicles. You'll notice they've rolled them out to sunbelt cities and not the snowbelt.

Not a lot of details about this out there, but I do wonder if it can be used to bypass activation lock on an ipad. I have a friend's iPad 8 that belonged to his dead brother, and he can't access the contents. He said he wanted to try to get in without wiping first. There are all sorts of dodgy Chinese software tools that show up when you look in search engines. I suggested making an appointment at the Apple Store and showing up with the death certificate, but he offered to let me try my hand at getting in. So I stepped up to the challenge. Given this exploit requires physical access, seems plausible that it may do the job. Typically, now that it has been patched, more details will trickle out and maybe even a working exploit. If anyone knows of a working method or tool, as of today, please post in response.

They facilitate it. The assistant editor does the rest, so take a hike.

You're wrong to say it can't be done well without LLM. Techniques like logging and tools like metadata have existed for many many years to address these issues, alongside roles as assistant editors. What this does is allow tight turnaround productions like reality TV to move faster with fewer assistants. You may find that socially beneficial. I'm not sure that I do.

Given this cluster of news, the assertion that Deloitte sucks at their job is prima facie true.

They should ... but they won't. Otherwise the revolving door will not be open when the State workers need to move into the private sector.

You say this because of some special knowledge of this vendor:customer relationship? Or is Deloitte's MO to always put mandatory arbitration into their service contracts?

I believe Deloitte should be the one taking the heat here, not the state of Rhode Island, quote "the state was informed by its vendor, Deloitte" who presumably was responsible for the cybersecurity of the systems they are vending.

Hope the State of Rhode Island built some provisions into the contract around cybersecurity performance by Deloitte that allows them to minimallly pass through the cost of cleaning up the mess, if not impose fines on "its vendor". Until such things are commonplace, we'll continue to operate in an environment of whoops have some free credit monitoring.

I'm glad someone here gets it. You must be Gen X like me. When I was younger, I was a lot more naive about root causes of these problems. After years of observation, I am just cynical ... but not naive. I'm proud of my accomplishments, and my former manager tells me that my security architecture still has not been hacked to this day. So I know it can be done.

You nailed on the other reason I exited cybersecurity. The vendors selling snake oil and silver bullet solutions for millions of dollars. My life is too short to get caught up in that security theater mess, not with clean hands or a clean conscience. I even came up with an unspoken conversation between my team and development teams, where they say, "We'll pretend we fixed the problem if you pretend it's not there any more." That's the typical attitude.

Sometimes the CIO has (waning) technical chops. Often, if there is one, the CISO may. The average tenure of a CISO is likely less than 24 months and they are first in the line of fire if something does go wrong. Meanwhile, they are understaffed, underbudgeted, and not given proper authority. So you wonder how our society got into this mess? And don't even get me started on regulators and politicians, who are the bottom echelon when it comes to knowledge, and often intelligence.

Having spent time in the cybersecurity trenches, I disagree with your thesis. A reasonably endowed criminal gang could assemble a team of the caliber needed to *successfully* hack billion dollar corporations. Does state sponsored hacking happen. Yes it does, but with the exception of China (and perhaps Iran) not in the way you think it does. Maybe Russia does now, but in the past the government just turned a blind eye to hacking as long as it didn't target organizations inside the borders. North Korea and resources is an oxymoron. NK definitely sponsor hackers, e.g. Lazarus Group, but only as far as education and opportunity. AFAIK, the state sponsored NK hackers are sent outside the country into small teams and given quotas ... not the "massive resources" of the State.

Instead of focusing on the threat actors, perhaps we should focus on the targets?

Shouldn't billion-dollar corporations be capable of defending themselves from hacking teams, state sponsored or not? The tragedy is on that side of the equation. I got out of the business because I found that executives were more concerned with the bottom line and their bonuses than with truly securing their products and networks. Until liability and criminal prosecution are meted out for negligence by people who know better and look the other way, nothing will be done to stem the tide. Since that will unlikely ever happen, because lobbyists, the tide will not be stemmed, imho.