Starmer is a blank slate of beige who has no principles or guiding morals and is utterly shit-scared of the Daily Mail. He's so desperate to stay in power[*] by not losing voters to reform that he's entirely happy to piss away twice the number of votes to the Greens and Lib Dems by trying to be reform lite.

[*] And no one knows why. He doesn't even appear to be in it for the personal enrichment, Tory style, or simply for the love of power. He doesn't have any vision for the country or direction he wants it to go. He's just there with one of the strongest governments in recent history flailing around and painting himself into every corner imaginable with no assistance from the outside.

Britain was stupid to leave the EU, but the EU is better off without Britain.

Erm... you do realise many EU countries already have national ID cards and the UK presently doesn't in any form, right?

Why do we need a national ID card. I'm happy without one.

Indeed. Intel's founders included many of the Traitorous Eight.

But they're not "starting over". They're using RISC-V, which is a mature instruction set with existing toolchains.

What monopoly?

Lately, Intel has been a crushee, not a crusher.

... until the presumably-push OTA updates.

I'm okay with OTA updates for non-safety items like a stand-alone enterainment system, but if it touches the drive train or any safety-critical systems, "nope."

I'd be fine with updates coming in the form of a product recall where you had to manually request the OTA update. By manually I mean toggle a physical switch that was actually part of the OTA circuit, not just a "soft switch."

Here's hoping the updates are signed. At least that would be something.

Either that, or people old enough to remember the K-Mart Blue Light Special - or even K-Mart itself - are taking the day off of Slashdot.

if his Daddy made a big donation AND his Daddy made him study well enough to get the minimum grades on the entrance exams.

After all, he did get into Wharton, and he graduated, which is no easy feat.

Whether he could've graduated from Harvard under his own merit (without cheating), or whether he cheated his way into or through Wharton, I can't say.

What you need for authentication without a computer:

* A very good fake ID.

What you need for offline authentication with a local authenticating computer:

* Name, address, picture, signature ID#, and whatever else is supposed to be on the ID
* Something that's hard to fake that matches your actual face or fingerprint (see above)
* A digital signature to authenticate everything above.
* On the authenticating computer, you will need a list of revoked signing certificates or canceled ID cards (excluding those revoked or canceled very recently). Of course, you need a program that will do the authenticating.

This can be done with plain old paper, but a laminated, stiff ID is less likely to smudge or crease. Smudges and creases make digital-signature-verification more difficult.

What you need if you have an internet connection:

Online authentication is simple: All you need is the ID# or some way to look up the ID# (name and address usually does the trick): The person who is checking you out just needs to look you up. If your face and other things match, you are that person (or a very very good fake).

None of these require a phone, much less a smartphone.

It's not how EU rules work either. The court will go with the intent of the law, not some grammatical argument.

I wouldn't call him a grifter. My only real complaint about his videos is that they are quite lightweight. The recent one he did about uses for the original Raspberry Pi is a good example. Didn't take investigate it much, just loaded Pi Hole and called it a day.

It doesn't align anything for you.

white-space: pre-wrap;

How about this, then: It fills a niche, but it is full of bad decisions (and fragmentation), and survives mainly by its existing momentum. It's crap in the same sense that Unix is crap: the founder effect has made its flaws impossible to dislodge or rethink.

A popular solution to a problem is not necessarily a good solution to that problem.