willnonya

Why would that be nice?

Follow the thou g ht through to how it would work and what it would mean in terms of privacy for the average person.

Your niceties seem dystopian to me.

Fraud, slander etc are already illegal. There are consequences for crossing these lines.

Perhaps most people aren't, evidence is pending, but enough of them have been proven to be that this is a real concern.

Engineering is an iterative process, that doesn't mean that almost engineering something contributed to the eventual design.

Getting credit for something you didn't invent rather than the word you did is just tacky.

The problem is that this only applies to the design and not the implementation. There is no perfect design and certainly no perfect implementations.

Being open source does not make anything inherently more secure.

It adds transparency and possibly confidence but for those without the resources to review the designs themselves it still boils down to a matter of trust in the competence of those maintaining the design. The potential trial for security does not equal security.

Most arguments in favor of open source security boil down to speculating about what's behind the curtain of closed systems. That's not really the same thing as security.

One thing that open source does do is lay bare any undiscovered flaws for future discovery, and exploitation.

This is exactly what I was thinking after reading the article.

Projects develop new products but are expensive to undertake. The enterprise products that resukt from these projects are largely profitable though deployment and maintenance efforts.

You touch on one of the key problems here. "Not showing the current UI". Allowing cars to follow the same ui refresh cycle as cell phones undermines the predictability of operating the vehicle.

There has to be a balance between the "always new" and "never updated" approaches here.

I agree that GPS makes finding where you are easier but it's a fallacy to pretend maps are hard to use. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature should be able to locate themselves on a map. It's only when you become so oblivious to your surroundings because you only know how ot listen to the GPS that this seems difficult...

Things did get diverted on a maps drove tangent but that usually on our pose to enable the same argument you're making now.

The argument started by asking why windshield wipers, environment controls or basic radio functions need to be buried in a touch screen.

Also most vehicles limit what's allowed in navigation screens while the vehicle is moving. Which is annoying when it prevents a passenger get from using it but sensible when there is a single driver.

There shouldn't need to be any law. Solid design principles should dictate how cars are built. Instead we get trendy styling dictating what is built. No concern for human factors or basic control theory.

After the 6th paragraph regurgitating the same lines without anything identifying which part contained the sim card I gave up reading this.

The writer seems to believe that sim cards themselves transmit data.

To all of the "No, youre using computers wrong" responses all I can say is they did declare that they are a web developer...

The important question is which one makes you look cool and which makes you look like a douche?

Blaming this behavior on covid is a silly premise. Especially when doing so for high-school students.

This is the folloy of our digital world. Whether it is books, software, data or services they are only as permanent as the will of some stranger allows it to be.

What percentage secure would you say it is?

"This is why lack of consumer protections suck"

So, rather than the consumer being responsible for their actions you support consumers engaging in whatever risky behavior they like as long as someone else is there to protect them or give them a do-over?

It's not like the NLRB is some paragon of virtue.

I am not familiar with GO but it seems a fallacy to believe that any language not already integrated with the OS wouldn't have some dependency that has to be installed or included in the distrusted files for them to work.

Your other comments seem to fall into the mindset of those that think that being able to control or configure your environment is somehow bad because it requires you to know something about that environment.

I work in an environment that has a lot of focus on DEI, training, posters etc. Unless you're standing in front of the equivalent of a polit officer the language is used mockingly. This isnt some right wing coven but a mix of perspectives. This mocking stems from the shared recognition of the absurdity of the issue.

As far as Me Too and BLM being "memory holed" that has more to do with the movements themselves. They each started with very real sparks but were both consumed rather quickly by movements that bore little resemblance to those sparks. They abused their support for unrelated and often self serving objectives and made themselves irrelevant as a result.

Thaslts the rub. Everyone is the good guy in their own story, right?

People on the whole also have a poor grasp of history and struggle to grasp how different things really were in the past.

So, youre asserting that democracy works vest when disfavored minorities are suppressed?

How do you imagine the civil rights movement would have worked out if unfavorable positions of the time were suppressed?

How would that work for LGBQ rights?

There is no value in suppressing bad views. Exposing them let's them be recognized for what they are. Suppressing them causes them to grow and fester in the shadows.

What people really fear is that people will not be intelligent enough to discern these bad opinions, that is an entirely different issue.

That is not the same thing though is it. People today fear being socially ostracized or losing a career over crossing an undefined or subjective line.

Neither of these fears are the same as actually preventing someone from expressing their views.

When threats become actual violence there are already laws to address that. Trying to preemptively protect people from mean words invariably harms more people than it purports to protect.

Well, if AOC said it how can there be any room for discussion or misunderstanding?

How could that be bad?

While I generally agree with you I bristtle at the "just do what chrome does" sentiment.

Chrome and Google taken co trol of the standard in ways that generally aren't good for anyone.

Did they display only facts that correlate to the desired conclusion or did they examine the I consistencies and counter points as well?

I don't disagree with their conclusion but the other commenter's point is reasonable. We live in a world where facts are fungible based on how they're presented and interpreted.

Few things are cut and dry despite how they are often presented.

So, you needed a multiple step process of technology transfer to an ai or an app to figure out how to split the check?

I find this fascinating but not terribly impressive. Its fascinating that such a rudimentary skill prompted you to dive down this rabbit hole. The unimpressive part is that it's a rudimentary skill yet your over engineered solution still only required rudimentary skills.

So, attempting to be objective and realistic are harmful to the cause?