I liked the McDonald's ad quite a bit because it encapsulated how I feel about this time of year - although I've never in my life eaten in a McDonald's and don't intend to start.
I don't think so. Not the ones that will matter at least. Anything that looks or feels even a little bit like AI goes on the dung heap now, even if it was just made by a human that spends so much of their time working with LLMs that they have completely regressed to the mean
It was derided as a "system for mass censorship", and got shot down. In hindsight a mistake, and it should have been implemented - it was completely voluntary by the user.
It’s close, but I see why it failed. There’s no need to include licensing/rights management in there. Also this was before pervasive HTTPS, so it would have been possible for governments and ISPs to snoop the info and possibly block it. If it could be limited to just content ratings, and kept private behind SSL, this isn’t a bad approach.
But this also needs some kind of guarantee that lawmakers won’t try to force it on FOSS projects that want to operate outside the system. And that companies like Google won’t use EEE to gradually expand this header into other areas and eventually cut off consenting adults who want to operate outside this system. I’m not sure if it is possible to get those guarantees.
The title is misleading unless you read it carefully.
They are not banning bringing power banks, they are banning using power banks. On the plane you have to keep the power bank on your person, but not use it.
This would be a lot more defensible if they had high-power USB-C ports by every seat.
I’m sure you don’t mean this, but it sounds like you’re saying that if airlines don’t provide high-power USB, passengers would prefer the risk of dying in a fire rather than going without their devices. Of course, now that I type that out, I worry that perhaps many people would make exactly that choice. Regardless, I would argue that aviation safety is much more important than device preference - if that means, we all have to go back to paper books, then so be it.
I'm pretty certain their intent was that passengers would be less upset by the rule change, and certainly less motivated to try to circumvent/violate them if they had reliable charging ports available
Incidentally, the longer forced reset triggers stay legal, the more real machines will have their value growth slow and, almost certainly, eventually tumble. The only reason this hasn't happened yet is because most people aren't yet familiar with them and many of the people who are just kind of assume that once they really go mainstream the government will put a stop to it, meaning "real" machine guns maintain their special status and therefore their special price. If FRTs stay legal for a long time and survive public scrutiny, then confidence in their future will grow and they will then eat much of the market demand for machine guns.
Of course, some machine guns would always remain valuable for their desirability as antiques, as long as people remain interested in them. That presumption of future demand for your collection might be a relatively safe bet for cool old guns in America, but it's still a bet.
They could likely get away with banning the FRT and bump stock through amending the definition of the machine gun in congress, just not the executive branch.
The ruling on those had nothing to do with overruling any part of the NFA. Only correctly identifying that FRT and bump stocks do not shoot automatically more than one shot by a single function of the trigger, which is what congress said would be the things allowed to be called machine guns.
So you think it's fine if someone accidentally activates the camera, as long as they know about it?
All it takes is an accidental click on "Video" during a teams call in the bathroom, and you will quickly discover the utility of a cover.
reply