Feeling old of having started driving on a 4 speed manual...

Google sells data, too. But they make damn sure that nobody gets the data without paying.

They deserve some time in prison, and I am surprised that they actually got it. This should be a reminder to managers that poisoning the environment is not a victimless crime, and you are not getting away with it.

Exactly. NVidia has a long history of cheating. Everybody knows they cannot be trusted.

None of that matters as long as they dominate the GPGPU market. Gaming is a side hustle now.

Most security breaches are on the server side.

Microsoft, Cisco, Apple, they all had account details compromised, including passwords.

Most terms and conditions contain some illegal stuff. They are just written to discourage users from seeking justice.

This is a company going down the drain, just because some newb MBAs have decided they can increase prices to infinity, and as long as one customer remains, they come out ahead.

How can they claim that a) the support contract has expired, but b) Broadcom still has a right to audit the customer? They seem to want it both ways, and judges do not usually agree with that.

As it should. Corporations limit civil liability, but they do not protect criminal behaviour.

And require the PIN to be 24 characters long?

You know what would be even more secure?

Make the PIN 1000 characters long.

> Passwords became unwieldy because we tried to improve security by mandating complexity, but suddenly 'limiting tries' is all it takes for four-digit numbers to become 'secure' again?

Basically, yes. Password complexity only matters if we assume that the hash has been compromised. I am not sure why we are ok with that assumption - if the hash is compromised, maybe we should assume that the whole system is compromised?

The PIN is stored on the TPM (hashed or not really does not matter), so we assume it cannot be extracted.

> "Nevertheless, this work challenges alarmist ideas about so-called ‘digital dementia’ and instead suggests that using digital technology can be good for brain health."

That is a very clear claim of causality. Right after the professor stated that they have not demonstrated causality.

I call bad science, or at least bad science communication.

Actually, I find these statistics very easy to read. 100 000 additional cancer cases, every year, most of them avoidable. And the risk of ionising radiation is very well understood.

How much easier do you want it?

> Instead, for some reason, a lot of doctors insist on doing it the other way around. This makes no sense at all to me. We should spend money to upgrade MRI hardware to be the best it can be, and stop using these ionizing-radiation-spewing abominations faster than 1950s shoe salesmen did.

That is exactly how I see it, but as you said, it is not happening. And yes, there are some applications where CT is certainly better (or where an MRI is disqualified because of implants), but you would assume those to be rare.

> How would it being cheaper factor into it from the caregiver's side? Isn't it more a question of insurances pressuring towards less costly procedures?

CT is covered by insurance, MRI is not. An MRI tends to be about 3 to 5 more expensive.

"Would you like to pay out of pocket?"

> I would guess they calculated that the additional cancers are cheaper than putting them all in MRIs instead.

Not at all, but the cancers is "somebody else's" problem.

> One guess is that it is a matter of a known risk in the present vs. a theoretical/statistical threat in the future.

Maybe, but I think something different is at play. There is a legal risk of not doing imaging, in case something might be present that is not quite clear through the symptoms. Doing a CT scan mitigates that legal risk, because "everything has been done". There seems to be little legal risk in doing a CT scan, even if it has a significant chance of causing cancer (probably because the risk is diffuse, and the causality hard to prove, as you said).

> but it was prescribed because the risks are balanced by the benefits.

I very much doubt that, at least if you talk about medical risk. For the legal risk, yes, that seems to be the main reason.

And your argument assumes that people act rationally. Have you looked around recently? Where do you get that faith in humanity? :-)