FireBeyond

How so?

Spoofing a MAC address because IT security has specifically sought to block you from network access (whether you think they "should" or not) just magically handwaved away because "he was really just looking for somewhere to keep his computer secure" (while it circumvented network access controls).

It did no such thing.

Ironic that you chose the Apple TV. There's a bit of nuance, and the 3rd gen was $149, not $129 (the latter is Wifi only, when the first two were Wifi+Ethernet).

They then bumped UP the 3rd gen: $249 (+$100) and $199 (+$70).

And the 4th gen has only one option, at $299.

So we've not only "not dropped" prices on the 4K Apple TV, but they've gone up forty per cent.

Right up to the launch of the Apple Silicon Mac Pro in mid 2023, Apple would still happily charge you early 2019 prices for the 2019 Xeon processors in the previous edition, 2019 prices for memory and flash (I ordered mine with 32 and used OWC to go to 192GB, because for the exact same chips, spec, timings, OWC wanted $1,050 for 192GB, and Apple wanted $3,000 for 160GB, i.e. minus the 32GB already rolled into the price. Similar $1K to $3K margin for 8TB of SSD - I bought a PCIe card with 4x2TB Samsung Pro drives).

> along with the eye-watering price point

I mean the entry level price for this is $2,899, "only" $400 more than the comparable non-touch MBP.

By repeatedly ignoring the laws of the nation, because of the edicts of its leader, i.e. literally the definition of tyranny, "a ruler who governs without restriction".

DHS has been dragged into court hundreds of times now and literally stood in front of federal judges and said "we're ignoring your court order, what are you going to do about it?"

What is telling a federal judge who has placed a hold on someone's detention that "No, we're ignoring that and have put him on a plane anyway"?

Or "No, we won't be turning that plane around."

I think you mean selectively enforcing some immigration law.

Tyson Chicken was shown to have provided written instructions for undocumented workers on staying under the radar. And yet when DHS arrested 900 workers at their facilities, they also announced there was no plans to investigate the company itself (strange - knowingly assisting an undocumented immigrant with such is a felony).

Hah, what? I have skills we need. I came here legally.

It would have been easier, quicker, and cheaper for me to come here on a visa waiver, marry a USC against the terms of that waiver, and ask for forgiveness (i.e. "adjust status") than it was to do so the "proper way".

Much of your comment just sounds xenophobic.

A few years ago there was a huge set of raids at Tyson facilities - 900+ undocumented immigrants working there.

Awkwardly, it was made known to the media that Tyson knew all about it, to the point where they had provided those workers written instructions and tips on how to stay under the radar with respect to taxes, financials, immigration, etc.

When a journalist asked about this at the press conference where DHS was crowing over the success of the raid? "That's not something that is being investigated as part of this operation." Well, what about separately? "We are not investigating the company."

A lot of the theory was that like some other food production firms (Hormel dealing with people getting sick from y'know, inhaling aerosolized pig brain), that it was very much a "won't someone rid us of these meddlesome immigrants" (the ones advocating about child labor, wage theft, OSHA violations). Come round these ones up, you get a press conference and we solve a labor issue.

I mean the Chief Justice was asked by Congress - "It seems that every other part of the federal court system has ethics guidelines and processes, but not the Supreme Court. It seems reasonable that the highest Court in our land should have those." And he replied, almost verbatim, "We're not going to do that and we're offended that you feel the need to ask."

Appears to be legal in that current rulings and legislation say that to do so does not run afoul of fair use.

Let's ignore every other aspect of this case.

Criminal law, "beyond a reasonable doubt", doesn't mean "there exists, however implausible, an explanation".

He did break into the network - he was spoofing MAC addresses. You don't have a level of technical sophistication allowing you to do this, and then say "oh, I assumed the server closet with an "Authorized access only" sign, usually locked, seemed like a safe place, that's all, and since I was there, I figured I might as well just plug directly into a network switch in there."

Many judges are not technical. Most judges are not idiots.

Scraping of assets from a site that encourages and where staff explains how to and posts scraped assets? Color me sympathetic.

As the Dilbert cartoon says, when he's arguing with Dogbert about having a personality:

"Let's not start this whole 'zero is too a number' argument again"

Yup. Had an MacBook Air. Slight water damage near charging port. Laptop functioned correctly on AC power. Extensive battery diagnostics: Healthy. Just the charging circuit saying "go ahead, charge device"...

At the Genius Bar expected something reasonable, realistic... $300? Parts and labor.

"So we have a quote for you, $950. Perhaps we go out and look at the new Macs together?"

90% of the cost of the laptop to replace the charging port.

Until Linda McMahon falls out of Trumps favor (and thereby, Trump Jr).

2007 I worked at MSFT, and they had a poker group. They were allowed to play in the communal spaces, but one of the restrictions was that there could be no variants in which a person placed a bet without seeing their hand. Under the Washington Admin Code for gaming, seeing your hand and betting made it a game of skill, betting (truly) blind made it a game of luck, i.e. gambling.

Random anecdote, accurate as of about 20 years ago?

My father worked for the Sheriff's Office in Melbourne, Australia.

The Sheriff's Office isn't like it is in the US. More something akin to bailiff meets US Marshal (enforcement of court orders, often time fines).

Anyway, being that Australia was still in the Commonwealth and such, his boss, the Sheriff, was still technically the executioner of record for capital crimes in Australia. Australia hasn't hung anyone since 1967, but technically still will/can for two crimes: high treason and piracy on the high seas.

His boss told him 1) that he was required to keep a noose or rope for it in his office, and 2) that to him, in the event of anyone even being charged with one of those crimes, the very next thing he would do would be: resign.

> When I stopped in an Apple Store yesterday and checked one of these out at the display table, I noted that the Apple Store employee who was showing the phone to people in a sort-of ad-hoc demo session told people that to close it, they had to press on the bottom-center bit of the hinge that's in-line with the bottom of the frame. Saw someone else online suggest that this could be because people pressed down on the middle of the screen to initiate closing it, and that that exposed some part of the screen to some moving parts in the hinge that were never meant to interact.

Comment from the article. Uh-oh, are we headed for another "You're (h)folding it wrong"?

Their claim, rightly or wrongly, is that it came from private data (a researcher got an exposed key and downloaded data with coordinates).

But I think as long as Proton wasn't that researcher, there's no case to argue there.

What is iMessage abuse on a Hackintosh? It’s connected to an Apple account. You’re running macOS. What is inherently abusive about it?

No, I get it, but it's still somewhat fallacious to say Apple doesn't care about "unauthorized" access to devices or services (whether or not you agree that such authority is reasonable or not).

As a healthcare provider (albeit paramedic), I don't think the issue is AI's encyclopedic knowledge of disease, but rather, how to draw out a good, structured patient interview and exam, and cross-reference details. I could regale you with patients who only remembered their serious penicillin allergy when we got to the hospital, or forget their shoulder pain when describing chest pressure and so on and so on and so on.

However, this is something an AI can be good at. And well, GIGO, be your provider human or AI. I can't act on things you don't tell me. Well, somewhat - if I'm looking at your lower legs and seeing severe edema, I might be skeptical of your claim that "other than what's going on today, perfectly healthy". So maybe we need realtime video too.

Relatedly, I was talking to my immigration attorney, who has been very good, on an area where immigration law intersects some other topics, and she was fairly obviously using AI on our video call to guide her on many areas she wasn't as familiar with.

One of the things that rubbed me the wrong way is that their initial responses were also filled with multiple appeals to authority. How long various people involved have been working for the company, and what they've been doing at the company, etc., with implications of "this wasn't incompetence or negligence". Who cares how long someone's been with the company?

And not only that, this also wasn't caught by their auditors who attested to the KGC and details.

So you'll be getting rid of Firefox, Chrome, Edge, etc.? All of which have non-USCs working on security code in their browsers?

> Apple has never bothered to detect jailbreaks and lock people out of iCloud and iMessage.

Not entirely true. It absolutely has in the case of the Hackintosh. In fact many a year ago that’s what inspired me to get my first Mac, because every release of macOS made it harder and harder with custom bootloader and kexts to get around Apple’s active efforts to ensure you couldn’t use those unless you were on an actual Apple device, not just running their OS.

Huh? This is a wild misstatement. Even your link doesn’t support this, and says that the "most likely reason" for the high rate is that prosecutors have broad discretion over whether to prosecute at all, and credits low prosecution rates and a different way of calculating the rate.

The new system has been in place for less than ten years, only covers a very limited set of crimes and is much more modeled on cooperation than coercion. The Ramseyer and Rasmusen paper reported 99.9% convictions in 1994 (49,598 of 49,643), when the law did not allow plea bargains. The rate was already above 99% long before plea deals existed.

Don't forget (and not just in LA) that you can only exercise your right to remain silent not by remaining silent, but by saying those words, ideally in response to each individual question.

Otherwise the prosecutor can stand up in court and say you were "uncooperative" and resisted, even obstructed attempts to investigate the crime, and if your lawyer tries to frame this as you exercising your right, the judge will not permit this because you didn't utter the magical incantations.

Partially. The prosecutors and DAs are motivated by conviction rates. The delays in the court system are a bludgeon to encourage that end. Just like identity theft in itself, no-one is motivated to fix the system but the ones being fucked by it, who are the least able to do so.