Also "opt-out by default" is called opt-in.

It certainly is. Of course opting in is implicitly buried in a twelve page legal blurb:

"By using this... you agree to opt in to ... and if we make something up later, you opt in to that too"

There probably should be a more targeted law because this landscape is ridiculous.

Exactly. If the device can be a vector for attack, there should be whitelists, not blacklists.

And at a higher level, if those prohibitions were bypassed, maliciously or innocently, the data that was accessed was not secure. One employees computer shouldn't have this much power over company data and infrastructure. The real failure is up the chain. This is a CTO-level failure.

Further, why isn't this being described as a failure higher up the chain?
Why should an employee have the power to cause this much destruction, even if the result of an error?
If your company can crumble because of a single lower-level employee, you have issues with your security landscape.

But even if its the latter they do, at least if the game is a faithful recreation. Games are not 100% spec'd out before the coding begins. There are iterative processes where developers implement parts of the game, and go back to the drawing board to rework the code and data (assets, levels, configurations, etc) based on testing. The game is a result of all of this trial and error.

Even if a game were rebuilt from scratch, the people who contributed to the original development effort share in the end product.

"Deserve" is subjective. But if we consider development efforts that make the end product the way it is to be deserving, then the latter absolutely deserve credit.

"And finally, who gives a shit about cherry picking a subset of C that does not use pointers?"

I only read the abstract. Does the paper actually say it cannot convert code that uses pointers? I would be surprised if that were true. Are you confusing floating-point arithmetic with pointers?

Betteridge's law of headlines fits perfectly here.

"Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

Because my PC came with Notepad installed on it.

And by typing that extra apostrophe, they negated three boots worth of time savings.

Wow. Hot take. I make sensible trades, thank you very much. Did you actually READ the article?

"First and foremost, we have to make sure that this benefits those who already hold wealth"

I'm going to guess "still cheaper", as I have seen that Amazon often marks things up to compensate for the "discount". They used to be truly cheaper. Now, for instance, I see items with "free prime shipping" are marked up, surprise, at LEAST the cost of shipping. So, we're essentially paying twice. Once for prime, and once again for the shipping that is baked in. I don't doubt that this happens with their credit card, too. If it doesn't, I'm still not having it, because Amazon has a solid history of casting a lure and pulling the rug.

Well, we know thousands of submissions were made. Without looking at the data, we don't know how many people, or how many actual complaints were made.

Because it smells like an ad, and reads like an ad.

The AI will undoubtedly get it wrong, leaving room for officers to adjust the report. Of course with a wide range of styles when it comes to making those adjustments.