omginternets

Huh... even there, I'm not sure I see a difference between the two. Hmm.

Wait, am I the only Frenchman who pronounces the k??

Let me guess: a larger proportion of pple are working gigs?

I am amazed at how fast we went from “if it’s not Boeing I’m not going” to this. I think Americans need to start considering their own financial industry as a strategic threat to their economy and industry.

This is what happens when bean counters run the show.

Arrays come to mind.

Sounds like we should sue them for that too?

That's fine, until a piece of supporting evidence (photo, email, faceID hash or whatever) establishes that you interact with the device on a regular basis.

The underlying issue is that giving the password is, in the majority of cases, equivalent to admitting that you own/control the device. In other words, it can easily force you to reveal your involvement in a crime, i.e. to bear witness against yourself.

>being forced to give up your passcode is no different then being forced to give up any secrets you might have.

Actually, the case is even stronger than you make it out to be. IIRC, one of the key constitutional issues is that providing a password is equivalent to saying "yes, this is mine". So even if we disregard the contents of the device, the issue is that you are establishing a legally relevant relationship with a piece of evidence.

I'm recalling this from a looong time ago, when I took a constitutional law class, so I hope those with fresher knowledge not hesitate to jump in.

That’s the part that’s most shocking to me. It seems like the safest approach to legalizing sports betting would be to prohibit advertising, just as we have with e.g. cigarettes.

The reason they’re good has a lot to do with how hard they are to find.

My friend, not conflating groups is literally one of the standards for public discourse in 2023.

e.g. product recalls?

The modern car contains within it a perfect example the dichotomy:

1. The ECU ("hard" engineering)

2. The infotainment system ("soft" engineering)

Now, an interesting thing I have noticed is that "soft" software engineering pays more. Often substantially more.

Yes, yes. I need help appreciating it :)

And why does that matter? What do we now know as a result? Or what interesting properties follow?

People seem to want to use LLMs to mine knowledge, when really it appears to be a next-gen word-processor.

I think you're nit-picking and failing to address the broader point.

1. The conversation may or may not contain information pertaining to an abortion.

2. The metadata (namely: "it's an abortion clinic") inherently contains such information.

The point is that metadata is usually the more interesting data.

Yeah, false positives are a doozy, and I don't see many guardrails in place to prevent the intelligence community from acting upon them :/

>you can easily infer what the appointment was because the phone call will mention the name of the doctor or office and you can look that up plus all the details they discuss

You're assuming these things are mentioned. "Hi, I'd like to book/confirm an appointment with Dr. Jones." doesn't leak information about "abortion".

Yes, these things obviously depend on what information is transmitted. The point, however, is that metadata more reliably transmits sensitive information than does "the data".

An interesting point in Glenn Greenwald’s book is that metadata is often more informative than the “real” data.

Consider:

1. A phone call in which Mrs. Smith talks to a receptionist to set an appointment with a doctor for 9:30 next Wednesday.

Vs.

2. Knowing that Mrs. Smith called an abortion clinic.

#2 seems like a bigger violation of privacy. Metadata is the real data.

I noted that Apple says the governments in question are allies of the United States. I wonder if this is a case of American intelligence outsourcing the surveillance of American citizens to foreign intelligence. If that is indeed the case, I’d expect a quid pro quo.

Huh, that's actually a good point. Thanks for that.

If we worked zero hours, then zero people would die from working.

See also: "we lowered the speed limit and get X fewer deaths on the road".

>The CDC also recommends changing the cat's litter box daily

Yeah, I'll get right on that. Sheesh, the risk-sensitivity of the modern medical profession is a bit ridiculous, sometimes.

Edit: I'm interpreting this as "throw out all the litter and replace it with fresh litter", which anyone who owns a cat will surely agree is insanity.

Sigh… no.

It’s saying that this is a case of academic innovation, and that that is startup drama.

In academia, it very much is the same thing.

Never underestimate the propensity of a criminal to engage in multiple crimes.

I maintain it could go either way.

>To say that there's a scandal because the cover-up didn't work is no more than a dingbat truism

This nails it quite succinctly, IMO.

What does "control" mean, technically?

I have an intuitive sense of what you're pointing at with the Boeing 727 crash experiment, but how does the law phrase it?