The entire selling point for the Nest thermostats was the remote connection.

While you are right that it remains "fully functional except for the ability to connect", what you're really saying is that it is now as functional as a thermostat that costs an order of magnitude less.

The Dumb Thermostat also has the advantage of being simpler to recycle, and lacking the risk of the electronics degrading.

> Except, for security purposes, it can't be used with third-party encryption.

Hmm... For... security... purposes.

Whose security?

OTOH, does that mean we don't have to participate in wars either?

Any particular reason to want him to face more charges? Consider:

- He's 18 now. He started this when he was 16 or so.
- 4 years is about a quarter of his life-to-date. And he's been in jail for some months already, if you were inclined to quibble.
- He is (apparently) cooperating with authorities to track down those who hired him.

Questions:
- Do you think that throwing him behind bars for 8 years, or 12, or 20, would make him less, or more likely to re-offend? Do you think he would come out of prison with a better or worse outlook?
- Do you think he would continue cooperating with authorities, if you sent him through the courts again after having pleaded?
- Do you think that society would be safer, were he to have a longer sentence?

Failing rehabilitation and safety concerns, what you're left with is vengeance. Putting him in jail for a longer time isn't going to make the people he swatted any less traumatized. (The reports don't say his swatting resulted in deaths, so I don't say "less dead".)

He's already ruined his life. He'll be a convicted felon until he is dead, with all the limitations society puts on them. You want him to stay in jail longer, simply to inflict more pain?

They'd have to replace the dwarf under the table!

Play a Dungeons and Dragons game using a LLM as a DM.

Tell us how much you like the experience afterwards, okay?

> That's why they're not doing another one, it's just massive.

The word I heard is that after BG3 came out, someone (IP owner, distributor, owner-of-the-studio?) wanted microstransactions added to it. The Studio said, "Nope, we're done, we're outta here" in response.

From some of the reporting, though, I'm thinking that that may be just another rumor. Publicly, they have stated (via IGN) that they "just weren't feeling it", and wanted to pivot to something else.

Whether that is "just saving face" (for someone) or not, it's what they've said publicly.

And "Right Now" is better than "Right".

"... unless someone is going to sue us, in which case I will throw you under the bus."

Most of the positions I see through LinkedIn, LinkedIn is gracious enough to tell me, "100+ people clicked apply".

Recently, for those JD I see because of LinkedIn, I include a cover letter saying, "While I have a long resume, I do not have ("nice to haves" 1 through 22). If you have resumes advertising those, your time is better spent with them."

I figure that, padders aside, if they've got 100 resumes coming in, they've probably got someone more closely matching their requirements than me.

And who know? Perhaps some live human will read my cover letter and be grateful. Or better, intrigued.

About that... There's yes, and there's no.

The data broker may be under no direct obligation to keep the data protected, but they may well be under indirect obligation.

Y'see, if they get the data from someone who IS under those regulations, that third party should be requiring the data broker to adhere to the same privacy protection measures.

Folks like the FBI could make the data broker VERY uncomfortable, having to reveal its sources and contracts or face obstruction charges. And those original sources, if they did not put privacy protection terms in their contracts would be getting attention. If they DID put such terms in, then the data broker could be in for a world of hurt.

> Make a probation period upon hire to make sure they "fit"....

This merely kicks the lawsuit down the road one step. Instead of "bias in hiring", it becomes "bias in retention".

You mean the atomic energy stations that...
- occasionally suffer accidents that have hundred- or thousand-year consequences?
- produce radioactive waste that - to date - we do not have long term plans for the storage or disposal of?
- require fuel, the mining and generation of which also produces radioactive waste (if low level waste), and has dire health consequences for the miners when accidents do NOT happen?
- are not actually cost-competitive with renewables? Are even less cost-competitive when you force the generators to eat otherwise externalized costs such as the aforementioned disposal, as well as risk management?

Those atomic energy stations?

> It's more to do with high interest rates

Oh, you sweet summer child. Perhaps you do not remember the '80s, and the interest rates then. It's okay. Us Oldsters can tell you all about those days.

If you'd be my bodyguard
I can be your long-lost pal
I can call you Betty
And Betty, when you call me
You can call me Al, call me Al ,,, what do you mean, "AL", it looks like "AI" to me!

The "reviewer" in this instance has the same incentives as the mortgage signers (such as from Wells Fargo) did. They will approve as many cases as they can, with as little due diligence as they can get away with, because that's where the OKRs will be set, where the employment reviews will happen, and where the consequences will settle.

Dream on, if you think the individual robo-signer... er, reviewer will receive any more than minor blowback. And in the mean time, the claimant (who, universally, will have had their claim denied or they wouldn't be making a fuss) is up shit creek without the unemployment benefit safety net they were led to believe would be waiting. Even if they sue (or engage in whatever other remediation process is available) and prevail, that's months or years down the line, and until then they're still unemployed and financially strapped (or they wouldn't have a) applied, or b) made a fuss when denied).