FireBeyond

Responding here to answer the dead comment which feels entirely disingenuous.

No-one mentioned "using ambulances as cover". That is separate from "enemy combatants are acting in a first responder capacity, but are still enemy combatants, therefore the entire first response effort is a viable target". That is a war crime that Israel regularly likes to commit.

> These are the same people who view women as property, homosexuality as a reason for execution, and 13 years olds as viable brides.

Halacha? Acquiring your wife through kiddushin? Only a husband can issue a get (divorce document)? Women in agunahs (dead marriages)? Sounds like property to me.

Rabbinic law makes capital punishment effectively impossible, but the Orthodox sects do everything possible to punish: disownment, both family and social and actual exile from physical communities.

Don't girls reach halachic adulthood at 12?

And lets not throw stones here. Even in the US, you can get married with parental consent or a judge's consent at any age in Mississippi, New Mexico and Oklahoma.

You can get married at 15 in Hawaii and Kansas.

You are "grandfathered" into sexual consent (not as in "accepting of marital rape" but "it's no longer statutory rape if she's your wife") when you do so.

So we may not want to be lording it too much on some guise of moral superiority, particularly given that most of the marriages that happen at those ages are not "young couple got pregnant, want to do the right thing" but "older man in conservative/religious community saw young vulnerable girl and decided he had to have her".

Says the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry, which then immediately refused to allow the UN access to verify the claim.

Jail? I'm going to bet that absolutely nobody higher up will face any consequences for this. The outcome will be "we will review our processes".

Israel likes to argue that Hamas embeds fighters with first responders, which even if so, they're still responding to injured. But Israel considers this not even collateral damage but justified.

Mind you Israel is currently funding a lobbyist organization in the UK to flag Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) as a terrorist group (because many years ago a couple of people who had affiliations with other anti-Israel groups were found to be also affiliated with MSF).

You're right to call this out, and what's more, it's not even solving the original problem. I overlooked this in pursuit of the load-bearing seams and finding the wedge needed to uptick engagement.

If I want Siri to talk faster do I go to:

- Accessibility > Siri > Siri Speaking Rate

or

- Siri > Voice

Because in iOS 27 these two are absolutely not the same thing, and the one you probably want is the latter.

Yup. Seven different paths comes with seven different sets of equipment, and seven different rights-of-way that have to be negotiated, purchased, leased, whatever.

> Of course, in most jurisdictions nothing stops you from going to court first if you like. But most modern-thinking judges tend to take a dim view if you turn up in front of them without having given ADR a go first.

“Nothing is stopping you” - most TOSes mandate arbitration, and unless you have something particularly egregious and a sympathetic judge the first thing on the docket is going to be a Motion to Dismiss.

And agreed. For better or worse. My minor stepdaughter was involved in a car accident. No liability was found, and the other party tried to sue her in Small Claims court which, in my state, you can’t sue a minor in (as no attorneys are permitted, so you’d have a minor representing themselves). The judge noted this, and told the other party “if you want to sue you will need to sue her parents or guardians”… and then tried to push us into binding arbitration anyway.

Which of course got my insurance company upset and involving attorneys on procedural/constitutional law, about challenging the judges authority to push us into that given there was no jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place so there was none to enforce us into arbitration (which in itself was an entirely separate farce, including where the “neutral” arbitrator berated me and said “I don’t understand why, as a person, if you know your insurance is going to be the one paying, you don’t just agree to give them all they’re asking for.”).

Somewhat smoothed? On the model at the back? Her hair has detail to it, but name one clearly defined facial feature on her face.

The girl in the front, sure. The girl behind? No. It's not even skin smoothing, there's not a single clearly defined feature to her face, while the hair at the same depth is markedly more detailed.

> not the AI scaled slop most of these cameras produce nowadays

As someone who has only been an Apple user for phones (and Canon, Sony and Leica elsewhere), AI or otherwise, Apple is not immune to relatively heavy post processing in software. They're certainly not inserting moons, but even the raw sensor data has had some uplift to it.

You say in practice, NDAs. What we've seen so far: classified military ops, people with access to Presidential speeches...

The other issue is that for Flock's marketing purpose, if a Flock query was made in relation to a crime, and that crime was later resolved, Flock considers themselves to have "helped solve the crime", regardless of the relevance or lack thereof of the query itself.

That's the best you got.

"Just lie on your visa applications, no countries on earth share data with each other and no-one cares except the US and who cares about them, nothing will ever happen to you."

Cool.

Actually, the idiocy of this response is even more notable when you learn that many countries will notate it IN YOUR PASSPORT that you were refused entry.

"Lie on your visa application and hope no immigration officer thumbs through your passport." Stunning advice.

Airlines do care. They get assessed a fee for every passenger that is turned around.

Oh look, Australia cares: https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/form-listing/forms/1563.pdf

> Have you, or any other person included in your visa application, ever been removed, deported or excluded from any country (including Australia)?

Oh look, Germany cares: https://preview.auswaertiges-amt.de/blueprint/servlet/resour...

> Have you ever been expelled or deported from the Federal Republic of Germany, had an application for a residence permit rejected, or been refused entry into the Federal Republic of Germany?

Almost like you're just making shit up based on some anti-US sentiment.

LOL at your hypocrisy. I am a UK citizen, and I am an Australian citizen, and I am -not- a US citizen, lived and worked in both and in Europe though I am, currently, in the US. But sure, make the same assumptions that you want to think I'm guilty of making.

You make it sound so "meh, whatever", but there's a few realities attached to this:

The airline in question will likely not serve you again, but probably more importantly, when you apply for a tourist visa to just about any country on earth, you'll now have to answer that question "Have you ever been denied or refused a visa or entry into a country?" and while some might take sympathy on "Oh, yeah, we get it", you can be sure you'll be getting extra attention and some countries will threaten to deny entry too.

But what they can do is confiscate your phone, _image_ it, without the access attempt, and keep the phone as evidence until or unless they feel the need to apply for a warrant for the access.

Amazon and PayPal are horrible for this. Clicking out of the dialogs and modals to actually get logged in? (Shout out to PayPal for a dark pattern that implies "continue to login" but is actually "continue to set up PassKeys", and you actually need to "cancel" to actually login).

I also despise that in between OSes, browsers and certain sites I am having to close/cancel/skip sometimes three or even four dialogs to say "No, I'm not interested in changing my login method to passkey" (PayPal is one example).

A nominal fee convinces people they're getting a bargain. "Free" feels like you're driving to someone's house to pick up their trash.

> “At a minimum, relocating Paramount’s headquarters and other operations out of California would result in losses of 2,750 and 5,550 job-years in California across all industries and losses of between $1.01 billion and $2.03 billion in economic output between October 1, 2026, and September 30, 2031,” the county’s Economic Development Corporation wrote in a September 10 document.

Except it's NOT the County's Economic Development Corporation at all. It's an affiliated non profit.

And you know who funded the study that led to the document? I'll give you one guess: starts with a P.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2026-09-16/leaked-stu...

> This is really clever from Apple. The journalist use case is just the PR story. This will be really useful for identity verification and insurance apps

This is definitely not an Apple thing, though the use profile is more ubiquitous. Canon had, more than twenty years ago, when they first started making DSLRs, the question of "If we want law enforcement to use these, how do we handle the inevitable questions?" and as a result built out the option to digitally sign the raw sensor data in-camera so the raw file could be pointed to in court with an attestation of image integrity.

> Do you have an example in mind for this?

Liver lesions, often benign cysts. Other cysts too (kidney, ovarian). Will often require targeted contrast MRI, and needle biopsy - which has notable risks for bleeding, often minor, but 3-4% can require surgery or even transfusion.

Bile leakage or infection can also result, or injuries to the gallbladder, bowel, bile ducts.

> This suggests a very fundamental misunderstanding of healthcare, treatments, and what insurance companies exist for. They are not about health policy or well being. They are about derisking profit loss. Their recommendations are to reduce cost, and nothing more. Doctors understand this, and will tell you this very plainly, as you fight to get required treatments covered.

I am someone who has worked for providers, worked as a paramedic, and worked for a company whose customers were health insurers, as we built claim benefits management systems for them, so literally the logic to calculate deductibles, handle accumulators, provider negotiated rates.

The issue is not my misunderstanding, it is that "health insurance" in the US is the worst of all worlds - health insurance when convenient (to the insurer), amortized healthcare when convenient. It used to be that about the biggest offering that health insurers could give you was better provider-negotiated rates, but that era is largely behind us with the vertical integration of supply chains, and a health insurance industry that can only make more money when prices go up (if your profits for premium administration are capped at 15%, the only way that number goes up is if premiums go up, because healthcare costs more - this is compounded by the fact that it's in everyone in the system's interests for it to cost more except the actual consumer).

Everything has had to be fought for - otherwise, to your point, why are actual clinical "annual exams"/"wellness" visits covered at zero cost, but incentives for weight loss (as in obesity reduction, even pre GLP-1s) or cardiac health are near zero while a gastric bypass is covered in toto.

My thoughts there are that there are a couple of factors at play - false positives, which might lead to interventions, even exploratory, that are not zero-risk. Even without risk, not zero-cost. And as such you end up with "you had no symptoms or concerns about condition X until you had this not-recommended MRI, and then treatment was ordered about condition X that was actually a false positive". Insurance doesn't view full body MRIs as medically necessary preventative screenings and this is generally accurate (though I'm also not naive enough to believe that a non-insignificant part of their objection might be cost).

The first part of this one is more hilarious when you ask "Find me the nearest Starbucks" while CarPlay is actively providing you navigation: "I'm sorry, I don't know your location".

I feel like imaging and physicians really amped up on pushing this over the last decade or two. Most of the big DI companies (GE, Philips, Siemens) had very friendly financing targeted heavily at physicians. They had "matching" services ("Find other providers in your area who'd also like to own a DI facility"). They'd help with consultants to facilitate getting your Certificate of Need (i.e. how not to piss off the other facilities in your area who get to say whether or not they'd reduce their investment in serving the area if you open up).

And the not unsurprising conclusion of all this? Physicians who own a DI facility or stake in one (and realize this doesn't have to be just radiologists, but any physician) refer their patients to imaging at rates far above expectations.

But now, line must go up, so we're doing this "scan your whole body and let's see what we can do to give you a touch-up", and ever-so-helpfully we have a whole network of providers lined up for referrals (that's if we don't just handle things in-house). I will be similarly unsurprised if many of the outcomes from this raft of scanning are procedures that are medically unnecessary.

The CRAs compete for breach business, because it's absolutely a profitable enterprise for them:

How many people actually sign up for your "free credit monitoring for a year" following a breach?

When you do, you typically do so by signing up for the highest tier (sometimes $30 or even $50 a month) product with a redemption code for one year free. You have to enter a credit card to do so, and to no-one's surprise, if you don't cancel in time, it automatically converts to a paid subscription "for your convenience".

There are many consumer protection farces in the US, but right up there has to be the notion that "identity theft" is the consumer's responsibility/obligation to prevent or resolve, not the entity that actually had the data stolen. You're considered liable until you prove innocence, even though you did nothing wrong.

This very nearly burned me when buying my home - having been an AT&T customer in the PNW for nearly two decades, "I" apparently decided to hit up a Walmart on the outskirts of El Paso, sign up for a Verizon service, run up two months of international calls and bail out.

Despite a police report, my utility statements, AT&T bills, etc. (all of which were, to be blunt, none of VZWs business), VZW stood by it initially, "On review of your documentation, we remain satisfied that this debt belongs to you based on the documents used to open your account".

I asked to see them, since they were, in VZW's own words, "mine". "We can't, for customer privacy reasons." Oh, so "mine when the bill needs paid, may not be mine for privacy purposes".

It's definitely not 10%, more like 3%. His net worth is currently listed as $248B. If he has to pay out the penalty on both acquisitions, his net worth will still be about $240B. There's nothing articulable about the difference in his life as a result.

I will give you the time though, or the motivations (however appalling they are) for his exertion of energy on these.

And will be still worth a quarter trillion dollars.

Years of his life, perhaps, though a large part of that will be banks and lawyers, not him grinding it out.

He won't even notice the money being gone, not even close.