WiFi jamming underpants.

In that case, carry on.

“These graduates are actually both going to be a big part of driving that progress and also dealing with the impact,” he added, referring to AI.

Out of context it sounds like a threat, but in connect it just sounds like vacuous CEO-speak, designed to respond to the question with some words while not actually answering the question.

deleted by creator

Why is it a win, and for whom?

Possibly both. Signal will want to protect themselves legally.

Only a day or two left to write to your MP and object to it.

I’m glad they’re keeping their cameras safe, but I do worry that a handheld laser could still reach a camera on a tall pole, though the operator might have to stand far enough away that they couldn’t be recognized. I hope no one would try to damage a valuable camera like that.

A lot of people chose Bitwarden because it was open-source, so they don’t see the very closed Apple Passwords as a suitable alternative.

Or it’s something you earn through transparency.

Don’t forget all the water and electricity that will be taken away from the people.

It also fosters a culture of non-cooperation with colleagues (because they are now your competition), where workers and teams try to sabotage each other, or at least not help, and throw each other under the bus. So there’s mutual mistrust too. And no one wants to take a risk and innovate, leading to further stagnation.

Meta is doing the exact same thing:

Mark Zuckerberg’s social media giant will reportedly hand out roughly 8,000 pink slips on Wednesday, May 20, eliminating about 10% of its global workforce. Notably, though, these cuts will arrive on the heels of one of the most lucrative quarters in the company’s history: $56.31 billion in revenue and $26.8 billion in net income for the first three months of 2026…

https://moneywise.com/news/top-stories/meta-layoffs-8000-workers-zuckerberg-ai-spending

“EV demand has declined considerably, due to the rollback of environmental regulations in the U.S. and other factors,” Honda said in a statement.

We need an influx of affordable EVs to make it possible for car buyers to respond to the rising gas prices. The price threshold is still too high.

Yes, the obvious solution is to avoid it. I use it only for the most boilerplatey things. Anything else, I want to make sure I can still do it myself.

Also endless bullshit.

Restraint or a realistic sense of how easily they could figure out who did it.

Consciousness is something completely different. It’s what makes you fully feel the present moment. It’s the fact of feeling alive. So it has nothing to do with the ability to crunch numbers or stitch words together into a logical sequence.

And there’s one fact you can’t get around. Consciousness, in every case observed since we started studying it, only ever appears on biological substrate. Never on non-living matter. Never on stone, never on metal and never on silicon. So it’s a fact that looks an awful lot like a law of nature.

This bit strikes me as odd. It suggests we’ve done experiments to check whether consciousness ever occurs in non-biological systems, and concluded that wherever we find consciousness it’s in a loving organism. But has anyone done such an experiment? Could they? Do we understand well enough what consciousness is, what it is for it to be present in an entity, and how to test for that empirically, that we can simply do experiments to test when it occurs and draw conclusions about laws of nature involving it?

You can’t do an experiment until you can say, to a good enough approximation, what you’re looking for and how you’ll tell whether it occurs or not. I doubt we even have a clear enough notion of consciousness to agree on what we’re talking about, let alone how to test whether it’s present, to do empirical experiments and draw lawlike conclusions. And it’s not that we just need to get a bit clearer about the kind of entity consciousness is: it’s not even clear that it is an entity in the empirical world.

Right now if you use encryption the authorities have no proof you’re doing something illegal, because you might not be. But if they make (secure) encryption itself illegal, then anyone they aren’t sure about suddenly becomes a criminal they’re sure about. Then it’s just a matter of selectively prosecuting those whom they most dislike. So it doesn’t matter to them that much whether lots of people find a technical workaround. If they can’t read your messages that’s all they need to be able to silence you if you’re inconvenient.

They won’t understand. 33% of Americans will swallow whatever incoherent excuses he pulls out of his ass on the day. 33% will object. 33% won’t be paying attention.