digitalPhonix

That’s exactly what I don’t want though. I don’t want to be tied to a bank app that requires a non-rooted device/whatever other checks it does.

It’s a surprisingly hard thing to search for online…

It absolutely did not. The RCS of an F-14 v/s an Airbus A300 is an order of magnitude different (probably 2 or 3 orders).

> There really was an F-14, just on the ground at an Iranian airbase

There was, but that’s a red herring for the root cause. Each ship’s radar independently and correctly identified and tracked the Airbus separate from the Mode 2 targets, but when communicating the track information between ships, the tracks were mixed up.

Source: The US Navy’s own account: https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/about-us/l...

> There was a combat camera team aboard the Vincennes, and the footage depicts considerable confusion and even ill-discipline amongst the crew (cheering, shouting, football game atmosphere) that contributed to one of the most tragic events in U.S. Navy history

https://www.mbusa.com/en/owners/manuals/drive-pilot

Requirements:

- Stop and go traffic (or less than 40mph?)

- On some specific sections of highway

- Driver doesn’t need to monitor but must be ready to take over with 15(?) seconds of the system requesting

> Mercedes-Benz is assuming liability for any crashes or incidents that occur while the autonomous system is active

That’s lane keep/lane assist; not lane centering. It’s supposed to bounce between the edges of the lane. (I guess, not supposed to, but that’s what it does as opposed to actually tracking some position in the lane).

The auto industry as a whole did a massive disservice not clearly differentiating “lane keep”/“lane assist” v/s “lane centering”. They are hugely different and trying to use lane keep to stay centered is really dangerous.

Same model car with different trim levels/packages would have lane keep or lane centering making it really confusing to consumers what they had and what safe usage would be.

Eh? Insurance? Registration? Not a fee but ok, ongoing cost. That doesn’t justify more ongoing costs.

> FSD is in fact market leading.

The article and the discussion is about autopilot, not FSD.

It was not proposed as a solution (although, it would work). I'm pointing out that in networking many names are conflated/used generally against their specific definition. NAT/Firewall; Router/Access Point/Gateway; etc.

This is a (dumb) NAT but has no state so it cannot possibly implement a default deny or any firewall adjacent features.

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0015.html

2025 deficit is not much smaller 2024 (looks within the normal year to year variance) and 2025’s deficit is still larger than 2023 and 2021.

Definitely not collapsing.

There are plenty of things that Windows 11 does well, but for me they’re all things that 10 also did well.

Most of the things that annoy me in 11 however were not also in 10.

Have any companies announced leaving (or intent to)? Or is it just individuals with the implication that future things they start/fund won’t be in California (being the loss that the article’s referring to)?

(Or some such variation of “making an opinion before having information”)

It might be unfair but port11 made the opinion of not wanting to work with people after observing their behaviours so it is not prejudice.

So it sounds like their policy of having a high bar for proving identity but still publicising what is required to meet that bar works for preventing fraud?

If anything, your argument is an indictment against Google.

> No. The version number will remain the same

Huh? Why not bump the app version and make troubleshooting easier?

Ok, but then Google needs to say what would convince them that the author is who they say they are. The author asked multiple times how they prove they’re the real author and Google’s replies never even acknowledge the question.

It’s not asking for documentation, it’s quite literally asking how to do something. There are links to documentation to prove that I read all the documentation I could (to preemptively ward off the question getting closed).

Yes, I deleted it because I solved the question myself, no need for it to exist as a closed question. How can I “Edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations. You can edit the question or post a new one.”? The answer is quite literally facts (the message format) and citations which is what I was hoping to get from someone else answering.

I undeleted it so I could give this example.

> So, yeah, obviously you will be able to show that as example because you didn't give anyone the opportunity to look at it again.

What would looking at it again do? I had no idea it was being voted to close in the first place; I have no way to request a review; and the instructions for what to do to “fix” the questions make absolutely no sense so there’s nothing to change before it gets “looked at again”.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Question: How is an SSH certificate added using the SSH agent protocol?

> Closed. This question is seeking recommendations for software libraries, tutorials, tools, books, or other off-site resources

Why not explicitly make the service provider explicitly responsible for what the chatbot writes (as if it were a human employee)? That way the company’s incentive is to build meaningful guardrails instead of checking whatever boxes the bureaucrats come up with.

It’s effectively multi-hop peer discovery and I don’t think you can encode the general case logic for it as just config.

Edit: as a (rather niche) example, FirstNet sims run a different applet to AT&T sims despite nominal running on the same network because they have special logic to use more networks if they are in an emergency area.

So it’s more like: which network to connect to, keys, fallback network selection logic and tunnel logic to get authorisation on a non-home network

Or a feature to lock users into their tools?

A guiding metric on lines of code. How could this possibly go wrong?

Is it just Mozilla testing the waters with the announcement?

> "I scraped every single restaurant in Greater London"

How hard is that now? I assumed that Google is very protective of that data

That's not what the author was suggesting (or indeed, what they built). They were trying to untangle the positive feedback bias showing up first in the rankings gives.

I think there's probably a lot more to untangle, but as a first pass it's super cool!