My thoughts exactly regarding line length. It's (relatively) easy to verify reports of violence, but a long line may appear and then disappear again in a matter of minutes, depending on the circumstances. How is Facebook supposed to know which reports are illegitimate and which are simply reports that they can't verify? Even if there was an impartial source they could tap for that information, how granular is that information being reported?
What about other pieces of information that may affect voting patterns? There are plenty of illicit ways to disenfranchise voters, as well as plenty that are purely accidental. Polling stations have been known to turn away certified translators despite not being allowed to do so, effectively disenfranchising people who don't speak whatever language(s) the ballots are in. Administrative problems can occur, resulting in people not appearing to be registered to vote at their designated station(s). A fire alarm may get pulled. A car accident may block the parking lot entrance. The list goes on.
And yet, each of those may be resolved within a matter of minutes without ever making it to the news or someone else's Facebook wall. How is Facebook supposed to recognize which reports of those sorts of activity are false and which are, at worst, merely outdated?
Not yet, but everything described in the summary sounds like it’s ripe for replacement by computer. There may be a temporary boom in the field, but it’s already too late to get in. By the time people choosing majors today could get in, I’d wager that a lot of that stuff will have been automated, leaving the only decent jobs as the ones that are doing new analysis to feed into the computers.
Doesn’t Apple already have a strong track record in doing exactly that, and in this sector, no less? The best example would be Imagination. Fast forward a few years after that buyout and those hardware engineers were the ones designing Apple’s A-series chips for their iPhones, the M-series motion chips, and now their W-series wireless chips. Given that the A-series has for the last several years been 1-1.5 years ahead of the competition and that the M-series are apparently doing things with Bluetooth that no one else yet is, it certainly seems like they’re fostering an environment that encourages talent to stay on.
Apple mostly buys tiny companies to bring in people with specific talents. They rarely do large buyouts where they’re having to merge vastly different corporate cultures (Beats is their biggest acquisition to date). If a company like Apple is willing to throw boatloads of money at you to make things happen, and they already have some of the best people and resources in the field, and there’s talk of them putting your company out of business by bringing the work your company does in-house, sticking it out with them after an acqui-hire wouldn’t be a tough choice for most people. In fact, it’d be the best choice, since it’d let you continue you work without the risk of job loss hanging over your head.
I'll tell you what's sad. It's sad that Apple hasn't got the balls to say "if you do this, we will no longer make or sell any products subject to these insecurities in your country."
Who says they won’t? It’s immature to threaten the nuclear option at the first whiff of trouble, particularly when you’d rather be on good terms with the other party. Instead, you call them out for their misdeeds and ask them to fix it on their own first, that way everyone can save face.
In any other industry, wasting resources for no reason but to print electronic tokens would be cracked down on.
We could require that they shoot other people in a "battle royale" of sorts in order to earn those tokens, at which point their activity would be indistinguishable from the way that tens of millions of other people are already wasting time and electricity in a socially acceptable manner.
As far as eccentric rich people go, Musk is relatively tame. Howard Hughs was far more eccentric, and he nabbed a handful of military contracts back in his day.
I had SMCI stock in 2017 and sold it after reports that Apple dropped them when they found serious security issues with their servers.
Going by that, the timeline would be that these companies discovered malicious hardware in 2015, kept thousands of those servers in service for two or more years, and only then decommissioned them. Does that make any sense at all?
Instead, if you read their initial responses to what Bloomberg published, they actually say more than that "they have no idea what Bloomberg is talking about". For instance, Apple provides an alternative explanation for Bloomberg's confusion:
[...] Bloomberg’s reporters have not been open to the possibility that they or their sources might be wrong or misinformed. Our best guess is that they are confusing their story with a previously-reported 2016 incident in which we discovered an infected driver on a single Super Micro server in one of our labs. That one-time event was determined to be accidental and not a targeted attack against Apple.
Apple dropped SuperMicro shortly after that incident, making it a much more likely cause for the falling out. Likewise, Amazon cites firmware issues with SuperMicro boards in their response, though you'll note that they were still using SuperMicro boards in 2018:
Additionally, in June 2018, researchers made public reports of vulnerabilities in SuperMicro firmware. As part of our standard operating procedure, we notified affected customers promptly, and recommended they upgrade the firmware in their appliances.
All of which is to say, nothing about Bloomberg's story makes any sense. The timeline makes no sense, none of the alleged victims has anything to gain by lying, one of their only named sources has come out saying he doubts the story, literally every company or agency allegedly involved has said it's untrue, and Apple has even gone so far as to formally inform Congress that inasmuch as the story pertains to them it's untrue, while additionally affirming via press releases that they are not under a gag order or anything else of the sort.
Someone's credibility is going to take a nosedive after the dust settles from this, and I expect that it will be Bloomberg's.
As someone who enjoys both PC and console gaming, it feels as if you're deliberately disregarding the advantages that consoles have. Off the top of my head:
* A (mostly) fixed hardware target. Because the hardware rarely/never changes, developers are able to focus their efforts better, resulting in a generally more solid product. While bugs do occur regularly these days, they tend to be fixed more quickly and are rarer than on PC. In contrast, I've purchased numerous games on GoG and Steam that required INI tweaking, applying patches, or reciting incantations before they would even launch, let alone run well, despite them being (or because they were) years after their release.
* Less complexity. Because they are gaming appliances instead of general purpose computers, consoles are able to hide most of their complexity. I don't have to worry about system updates breaking obscure apps that I've installed. I don't have to worry about whether my peripherals have drivers. Things that work with it, work. Things that don't work with it, don't. Easy.
* Simpler maintenance. Because they hide their complexity, they require less effort to maintain. Even the updates apply themselves. Other than moving files around when I fill a drive, there's really not much I can do, let alone need to do, meaning that I get to focus on actually playing games.
* Longer lifespan. Setting aside hardware failure (which happens to PCs as well), it's rare that anyone is outright unable to use their console. People are only ever forced to retire their consoles when their new TVs lack the right inputs (and even then, there are adapters). In contrast, OS updates leave PCs more sluggish each year, cruft accumulates, driver and OS updates break compatibility, and next thing you know your PC can't play games that used to work fine.
* Exclusives. Depending on your taste in games, picking up a console may be your only option. I just built a gaming PC this month that puts any of my consoles to shame, and I'm eager to put it through its paces, and yet two of my purchases in the last month were for games that my PC can't play, simply because they're console exclusives.
* Used copy pricing. With the rise of Steam and GoG, it's difficult to find legitimate, used copies of PC games for cheap, let alone ones that are guaranteed to have not had necessary codes redeemed. In contrast, eBay is just a click away with cheap prices for used discs or cartridges.
* Better prices for non-exclusives. This is actually an advantage for both consoles AND PCs. Because both exist and because most games are NOT exclusives, buyers with both platforms are able to shop around. I paid $5 last week for a game that has never been cheaper than $20 on PC, thanks to the fact that I could pick it up for a console. Conversely, I've picked up games during Steam and GoG sales for even cheaper than that. Owning both gives me options.
Which isn't to say that I favor consoles to PCs. Far from it, in fact! I actually prefer PCs (particularly when they're DRM-free), despite the advantages I just listed for consoles. After all, that added complexity with PCs brings with it a number of significant benefits that I actually do enjoy. Even so, suggesting that consoles should be relegated to the dustbin of history seems a bit shortsighted to me, given that they're not without their own advantages.
I'll say. I was able to pick up a new 2700X for $297.68 after tax a few weeks ago from a local retailer. Most online stores list the 2700X at $320 without any specials or discounts. The summary is saying the i9-9900K is supposed to compete with that, but the 9900K's MSRP is a whopping $488. At those prices, the 9900K needs to stomp all over the 2700X. Anything less would be a disaster. Simply trading blows with the 2700X wouldn't be anywhere close to good enough.
But that's probably because it's a silly comparison to make in the first place. The current i7-8700K is already trading blows with/is coming out ahead of the 2700X and is priced much more comparably at $380. It came out ahead of the 2700X in the majority of real world tests I've seen (as it should, given that it's more expensive), but it falls behind in certain workflows and games (i.e. ones benefitting from more cores). I'd be much more interested in hearing how the 9900K compares to the 8700K, since it's a known quantity and not a comparison that they're as likely to rig.
Regardless, I sincerely hope the 9900K is 30-50% faster than the 2700X in real world usage, but that's a tall order. This is Intel's fifth generation at 14nm and their third generation with this microarchitecture. Anandtech even referred to it as "Skylake Refresh Refresh Refresh". The low hanging fruit was culled long ago. They had to toss some more cores in, but otherwise it looks to be more of the same incremental improvements we've been seeing.
You're making a distinction without difference, pointing out details that have no relevance to the conversation. In a discussion about whether or not traffic lights would be impacted by these glasses—to which the answer is "no" since those lights do not employ a polarizing filter—the fact that there are also some screens that don't use a polarizing filter (e.g. OLED) has no relevance. Sure, I could have phrased things more precisely, but it shouldn't have been necessary to do so.
LED screens are polarized (that's how these glasses work; they're applying a simple polarized filter). LED lights, which is what the GP was talking about and are what are used at traffic intersections, are not.
I’m all for holding people accountable, but it sounds like you’re suggesting “the point” is that we should be upset at someone for NOT breaking their word. I cordially disagree and would like to suggest that you are intentionally being obtuse if you would suggest otherwise.
One side alleges the servers were removed back in 2015. The other side says the malicious servers never existed, but that the Super Micro servers that did exist were decommissioned in 2016 for unrelated reasons. Either way, there aren’t any servers around to open up and check.
It’s untrue that AWS knew about a supply chain compromise, an issue with malicious chips, or hardware modifications when acquiring Elemental. It’s also untrue that AWS knew about servers containing malicious chips or modifications in data centers based in China, or that AWS worked with the FBI to investigate or provide data about malicious hardware. [...]
And they go on to say a lot more that categorically denies Bloomberg's claims while making a mention of an unrelated firmware incident from 2016.
Apple:
Over the course of the past year, Bloomberg has contacted us multiple times with claims, sometimes vague and sometimes elaborate, of an alleged security incident at Apple. Each time, we have conducted rigorous internal investigations based on their inquiries and each time we have found absolutely no evidence to support any of them. We have repeatedly and consistently offered factual responses, on the record, refuting virtually every aspect of Bloomberg’s story relating to Apple.
On this we can be very clear: Apple has never found malicious chips, “hardware manipulations” or vulnerabilities purposely planted in any server. Apple never had any contact with the FBI or any other agency about such an incident. We are not aware of any investigation by the FBI, nor are our contacts in law enforcement. [...]
And they go on to say a lot more that categorically denies Bloomberg's claims while suggesting that Bloomberg may be confused about the 2016 firmware incident.
Super Micro:
While we would cooperate with any government investigation, we are not aware of any investigation regarding this topic nor have we been contacted by any government agency in this regard. We are not aware of any customer dropping Supermicro as a supplier for this type of issue.
And they go on to say a lot more that categorically denies Bloomberg's claims, including denying that they even make the chips that were allegedly compromised and that these companies supposedly purchased from them.
Meanwhile, here's a complete list of Bloomberg's sources who were willing to speak on the record:
Sure. In their latest iOS security white paper, Apple specifies on page 12 that the keys used by biometric methods to unlock the device are wiped if any of the conditions in which a passcode is required occur, and page 10 says that a passcode is required after five unsuccessful attempts at unlocking the device.
If your device does not have biometrics enabled, that key will never be generated in the first place, so you’d always have to use your passcode to unlock a different key, which law enforcement in the US can not compel you to provide due to 5th Amendment protections.
It gets back to what I said at the top of that last post. Messing up the FaceID enough times wipes one of the cryptographic keys that’s used to access the key that unlocks the device. Modifying the metaphor a bit, it’d be like a safe with two locks, one they can force you to use, the other that they can’t legally compel you to use, and you intentionally broke the former. At that point, their only options are to pick the second lock (i.e. guess your passcode) or crack the safe some other way.
Exactly what I was thinking. A site posts something that creates a situation, they take the page down and engage in PR spin, Wikipedia links to the archived copy of the page to demonstrate what content had been there, and then the site modifies their robots.txt, retroactively clearing the content from the IA.
I understand IA's policy of abiding by robots.txt, but when someone needs to be held accountable for what they said, having a single source that can serve as a living embodiment of "the Internet never forgets" would be quite nice.
There are other gains to be had. For instance, updating apps to 64-bit means that everything links against Apple's 64-bit library binaries. As a result, Apple can drop the 32-bit binaries from watchOS, leading to less maintenance, smaller and faster system update downloads, and more space available for the user to use on the device. Given that these are rather constrained devices, every little bit (pun intended) helps.
the evidence still exists as it did before you touched the device
Technically speaking, no, it doesn't. Deliberately locking it in this way irretrievably wipes one of the keys used to unlock the device's master encryption key. A new key for use by FaceID won't be generated until and unless the phone is unlocked via a passcode.
The police can't access the device which is the same position they were before they handed it to you.
In one sense (not the legal one), sure. Legally, however, that logic is faulty. If the police say, "stop, you're under arrest", and I take off running in response, the fact that I'm just as NOT in their custody as before would—by your logic—mean that the situation is unchanged, right? So it isn't resisting arrest? Good luck arguing that in court.
Likewise, this situation isn't binary either: there are degrees of not having access. If the police have confiscated a safe of mine that's locked, they may ask me to unlock it using a key they know I have in my possession. If instead of unlocking the safe, I mangle the lock and weld the safe's door shut, the situation has changed. It's now much more difficult for them to gain access to the safe. The same holds true with the phone. If, instead of opening the phone, I take action that destroys a key to unlock the phone, I've changed things for them.
Does it not eventually lock for ever longer periods of time if you keep deliberately messing it up?
It eventually requires a passcode if it fails enough times, but if the police have a valid warrant requiring that you present something that is undeniably in your possession (e.g. your fingerprint, your face with a neutral expression, etc.), you're legally obligated to do so. Failing to deliver the thing could be viewed as obstructing an investigation. If your device gets locked behind a passcode because you intentionally botched it enough times, you would have tampered with evidence. The fact that you're refusing to comply with a valid court order could result in you being in contempt of court. And to rub salt in the wound, they may have taken an image of your device before handing it back to you to unlock, so your efforts wouldn't have accomplished anything, other than the addition of more charges against you.
All of which is to say, yes, it does, but you'd be doing so at your own risk.
It's an anthology series. And, if you watch through the end of series four, you'll discover that many of the episodes actually are in an interconnected world, with previous characters or events being referenced in at least one later episode.
This sounds like a “choose your own adventure” plot selection, akin to what was done with Mosaic, rather than the “viewer’s choice” style plot selection you seem to be thinking of. As such, your concern is rather moot, since it’s each person making a personal choice about how to view the story.
Netflix is realizing that as a company that owns its own content delivery clients, they’re in an ideal position to try to leverage this sort of content. In contrast, HBO had to convince people to download a separate app for Mosaic, which likely only saw as much success as it did because they literally gave it away for free. Had it been limited to HBO’s current subscribers, they would have effectively limiting it to just those subscribers who are using or willing to use an app (i.e. a subset of their subscribers, since most watch exclusively via a cable package), whereas with Netflix, that’s their entire customer base.
Of course there is plenty of room for improvement. There's no reason the watch couldn't make a unique beeping sound as it counts down to remind the wearer to disable it. There's no reason it couldn't alert emergency services AND text/email/call a list of contacts. There's no reason not to allow customizations like "slide to call" rather than "slide to cancel", at the wearer's own risk.
I think the Watch already does ALL of those things, actually. It vibrates on your wrist for that minute to try to get your attention, it alerts your emergency contacts if you’ve opted to have them alerted, and “slide to call” is simply its normal behavior, which you you can make the default by never enabling the detection.
Facebook can be required to take "reasonable" steps to execute the warrant, and be reimbursed for those steps.
Not so! While it’s true that that’s normally the case, CALEA specifically precludes law enforcement from demanding changes. All they can do is demand that telecommunications services make use of their existing functionality.
Wiretapping was already possible with POTS due to the way that switchboards operated, but Apple was able to push back with CALEA when the FBI demanded a backdoor after the San Bernardino shooting. Because Apple’s system was designed to prevent their own access to that data, the FBI was unable to compel Apple to make the desired changes, and the FBI dropped the case as soon as they saw that Apple intended to fight it in court since it would have set a precedent the FBI didn’t want.
Slashdot Mirror
My thoughts exactly regarding line length. It's (relatively) easy to verify reports of violence, but a long line may appear and then disappear again in a matter of minutes, depending on the circumstances. How is Facebook supposed to know which reports are illegitimate and which are simply reports that they can't verify? Even if there was an impartial source they could tap for that information, how granular is that information being reported?
What about other pieces of information that may affect voting patterns? There are plenty of illicit ways to disenfranchise voters, as well as plenty that are purely accidental. Polling stations have been known to turn away certified translators despite not being allowed to do so, effectively disenfranchising people who don't speak whatever language(s) the ballots are in. Administrative problems can occur, resulting in people not appearing to be registered to vote at their designated station(s). A fire alarm may get pulled. A car accident may block the parking lot entrance. The list goes on.
And yet, each of those may be resolved within a matter of minutes without ever making it to the news or someone else's Facebook wall. How is Facebook supposed to recognize which reports of those sorts of activity are false and which are, at worst, merely outdated?
Not yet, but everything described in the summary sounds like it’s ripe for replacement by computer. There may be a temporary boom in the field, but it’s already too late to get in. By the time people choosing majors today could get in, I’d wager that a lot of that stuff will have been automated, leaving the only decent jobs as the ones that are doing new analysis to feed into the computers.
Doesn’t Apple already have a strong track record in doing exactly that, and in this sector, no less? The best example would be Imagination. Fast forward a few years after that buyout and those hardware engineers were the ones designing Apple’s A-series chips for their iPhones, the M-series motion chips, and now their W-series wireless chips. Given that the A-series has for the last several years been 1-1.5 years ahead of the competition and that the M-series are apparently doing things with Bluetooth that no one else yet is, it certainly seems like they’re fostering an environment that encourages talent to stay on.
Apple mostly buys tiny companies to bring in people with specific talents. They rarely do large buyouts where they’re having to merge vastly different corporate cultures (Beats is their biggest acquisition to date). If a company like Apple is willing to throw boatloads of money at you to make things happen, and they already have some of the best people and resources in the field, and there’s talk of them putting your company out of business by bringing the work your company does in-house, sticking it out with them after an acqui-hire wouldn’t be a tough choice for most people. In fact, it’d be the best choice, since it’d let you continue you work without the risk of job loss hanging over your head.
I'll tell you what's sad. It's sad that Apple hasn't got the balls to say "if you do this, we will no longer make or sell any products subject to these insecurities in your country."
Who says they won’t? It’s immature to threaten the nuclear option at the first whiff of trouble, particularly when you’d rather be on good terms with the other party. Instead, you call them out for their misdeeds and ask them to fix it on their own first, that way everyone can save face.
In any other industry, wasting resources for no reason but to print electronic tokens would be cracked down on.
We could require that they shoot other people in a "battle royale" of sorts in order to earn those tokens, at which point their activity would be indistinguishable from the way that tens of millions of other people are already wasting time and electricity in a socially acceptable manner.
As far as eccentric rich people go, Musk is relatively tame. Howard Hughs was far more eccentric, and he nabbed a handful of military contracts back in his day.
I had SMCI stock in 2017 and sold it after reports that Apple dropped them when they found serious security issues with their servers.
Going by that, the timeline would be that these companies discovered malicious hardware in 2015, kept thousands of those servers in service for two or more years, and only then decommissioned them. Does that make any sense at all?
Instead, if you read their initial responses to what Bloomberg published, they actually say more than that "they have no idea what Bloomberg is talking about". For instance, Apple provides an alternative explanation for Bloomberg's confusion:
[...] Bloomberg’s reporters have not been open to the possibility that they or their sources might be wrong or misinformed. Our best guess is that they are confusing their story with a previously-reported 2016 incident in which we discovered an infected driver on a single Super Micro server in one of our labs. That one-time event was determined to be accidental and not a targeted attack against Apple.
Apple dropped SuperMicro shortly after that incident, making it a much more likely cause for the falling out. Likewise, Amazon cites firmware issues with SuperMicro boards in their response, though you'll note that they were still using SuperMicro boards in 2018:
Additionally, in June 2018, researchers made public reports of vulnerabilities in SuperMicro firmware. As part of our standard operating procedure, we notified affected customers promptly, and recommended they upgrade the firmware in their appliances.
All of which is to say, nothing about Bloomberg's story makes any sense. The timeline makes no sense, none of the alleged victims has anything to gain by lying, one of their only named sources has come out saying he doubts the story, literally every company or agency allegedly involved has said it's untrue, and Apple has even gone so far as to formally inform Congress that inasmuch as the story pertains to them it's untrue, while additionally affirming via press releases that they are not under a gag order or anything else of the sort.
Someone's credibility is going to take a nosedive after the dust settles from this, and I expect that it will be Bloomberg's.
As someone who enjoys both PC and console gaming, it feels as if you're deliberately disregarding the advantages that consoles have. Off the top of my head:
* A (mostly) fixed hardware target. Because the hardware rarely/never changes, developers are able to focus their efforts better, resulting in a generally more solid product. While bugs do occur regularly these days, they tend to be fixed more quickly and are rarer than on PC. In contrast, I've purchased numerous games on GoG and Steam that required INI tweaking, applying patches, or reciting incantations before they would even launch, let alone run well, despite them being (or because they were) years after their release.
* Less complexity. Because they are gaming appliances instead of general purpose computers, consoles are able to hide most of their complexity. I don't have to worry about system updates breaking obscure apps that I've installed. I don't have to worry about whether my peripherals have drivers. Things that work with it, work. Things that don't work with it, don't. Easy.
* Simpler maintenance. Because they hide their complexity, they require less effort to maintain. Even the updates apply themselves. Other than moving files around when I fill a drive, there's really not much I can do, let alone need to do, meaning that I get to focus on actually playing games.
* Longer lifespan. Setting aside hardware failure (which happens to PCs as well), it's rare that anyone is outright unable to use their console. People are only ever forced to retire their consoles when their new TVs lack the right inputs (and even then, there are adapters). In contrast, OS updates leave PCs more sluggish each year, cruft accumulates, driver and OS updates break compatibility, and next thing you know your PC can't play games that used to work fine.
* Exclusives. Depending on your taste in games, picking up a console may be your only option. I just built a gaming PC this month that puts any of my consoles to shame, and I'm eager to put it through its paces, and yet two of my purchases in the last month were for games that my PC can't play, simply because they're console exclusives.
* Used copy pricing. With the rise of Steam and GoG, it's difficult to find legitimate, used copies of PC games for cheap, let alone ones that are guaranteed to have not had necessary codes redeemed. In contrast, eBay is just a click away with cheap prices for used discs or cartridges.
* Better prices for non-exclusives. This is actually an advantage for both consoles AND PCs. Because both exist and because most games are NOT exclusives, buyers with both platforms are able to shop around. I paid $5 last week for a game that has never been cheaper than $20 on PC, thanks to the fact that I could pick it up for a console. Conversely, I've picked up games during Steam and GoG sales for even cheaper than that. Owning both gives me options.
Which isn't to say that I favor consoles to PCs. Far from it, in fact! I actually prefer PCs (particularly when they're DRM-free), despite the advantages I just listed for consoles. After all, that added complexity with PCs brings with it a number of significant benefits that I actually do enjoy. Even so, suggesting that consoles should be relegated to the dustbin of history seems a bit shortsighted to me, given that they're not without their own advantages.
I'll say. I was able to pick up a new 2700X for $297.68 after tax a few weeks ago from a local retailer. Most online stores list the 2700X at $320 without any specials or discounts. The summary is saying the i9-9900K is supposed to compete with that, but the 9900K's MSRP is a whopping $488. At those prices, the 9900K needs to stomp all over the 2700X. Anything less would be a disaster. Simply trading blows with the 2700X wouldn't be anywhere close to good enough.
But that's probably because it's a silly comparison to make in the first place. The current i7-8700K is already trading blows with/is coming out ahead of the 2700X and is priced much more comparably at $380. It came out ahead of the 2700X in the majority of real world tests I've seen (as it should, given that it's more expensive), but it falls behind in certain workflows and games (i.e. ones benefitting from more cores). I'd be much more interested in hearing how the 9900K compares to the 8700K, since it's a known quantity and not a comparison that they're as likely to rig.
Regardless, I sincerely hope the 9900K is 30-50% faster than the 2700X in real world usage, but that's a tall order. This is Intel's fifth generation at 14nm and their third generation with this microarchitecture. Anandtech even referred to it as "Skylake Refresh Refresh Refresh". The low hanging fruit was culled long ago. They had to toss some more cores in, but otherwise it looks to be more of the same incremental improvements we've been seeing.
You're making a distinction without difference, pointing out details that have no relevance to the conversation. In a discussion about whether or not traffic lights would be impacted by these glasses—to which the answer is "no" since those lights do not employ a polarizing filter—the fact that there are also some screens that don't use a polarizing filter (e.g. OLED) has no relevance. Sure, I could have phrased things more precisely, but it shouldn't have been necessary to do so.
LED screens are polarized (that's how these glasses work; they're applying a simple polarized filter). LED lights, which is what the GP was talking about and are what are used at traffic intersections, are not.
I’m all for holding people accountable, but it sounds like you’re suggesting “the point” is that we should be upset at someone for NOT breaking their word. I cordially disagree and would like to suggest that you are intentionally being obtuse if you would suggest otherwise.
Have sales died? Last I heard, it was still going strong.
One side alleges the servers were removed back in 2015. The other side says the malicious servers never existed, but that the Super Micro servers that did exist were decommissioned in 2016 for unrelated reasons. Either way, there aren’t any servers around to open up and check.
Bloomberg published responses from the companies involved. Here are some excerpts that give you a sense of how they responded...
Amazon:
It’s untrue that AWS knew about a supply chain compromise, an issue with malicious chips, or hardware modifications when acquiring Elemental. It’s also untrue that AWS knew about servers containing malicious chips or modifications in data centers based in China, or that AWS worked with the FBI to investigate or provide data about malicious hardware. [...]
And they go on to say a lot more that categorically denies Bloomberg's claims while making a mention of an unrelated firmware incident from 2016.
Apple:
Over the course of the past year, Bloomberg has contacted us multiple times with claims, sometimes vague and sometimes elaborate, of an alleged security incident at Apple. Each time, we have conducted rigorous internal investigations based on their inquiries and each time we have found absolutely no evidence to support any of them. We have repeatedly and consistently offered factual responses, on the record, refuting virtually every aspect of Bloomberg’s story relating to Apple.
On this we can be very clear: Apple has never found malicious chips, “hardware manipulations” or vulnerabilities purposely planted in any server. Apple never had any contact with the FBI or any other agency about such an incident. We are not aware of any investigation by the FBI, nor are our contacts in law enforcement. [...]
And they go on to say a lot more that categorically denies Bloomberg's claims while suggesting that Bloomberg may be confused about the 2016 firmware incident.
Super Micro:
While we would cooperate with any government investigation, we are not aware of any investigation regarding this topic nor have we been contacted by any government agency in this regard. We are not aware of any customer dropping Supermicro as a supplier for this type of issue.
And they go on to say a lot more that categorically denies Bloomberg's claims, including denying that they even make the chips that were allegedly compromised and that these companies supposedly purchased from them.
Meanwhile, here's a complete list of Bloomberg's sources who were willing to speak on the record:
*crickets*
Sure. In their latest iOS security white paper, Apple specifies on page 12 that the keys used by biometric methods to unlock the device are wiped if any of the conditions in which a passcode is required occur, and page 10 says that a passcode is required after five unsuccessful attempts at unlocking the device.
If your device does not have biometrics enabled, that key will never be generated in the first place, so you’d always have to use your passcode to unlock a different key, which law enforcement in the US can not compel you to provide due to 5th Amendment protections.
It gets back to what I said at the top of that last post. Messing up the FaceID enough times wipes one of the cryptographic keys that’s used to access the key that unlocks the device. Modifying the metaphor a bit, it’d be like a safe with two locks, one they can force you to use, the other that they can’t legally compel you to use, and you intentionally broke the former. At that point, their only options are to pick the second lock (i.e. guess your passcode) or crack the safe some other way.
Exactly what I was thinking. A site posts something that creates a situation, they take the page down and engage in PR spin, Wikipedia links to the archived copy of the page to demonstrate what content had been there, and then the site modifies their robots.txt, retroactively clearing the content from the IA.
I understand IA's policy of abiding by robots.txt, but when someone needs to be held accountable for what they said, having a single source that can serve as a living embodiment of "the Internet never forgets" would be quite nice.
There are other gains to be had. For instance, updating apps to 64-bit means that everything links against Apple's 64-bit library binaries. As a result, Apple can drop the 32-bit binaries from watchOS, leading to less maintenance, smaller and faster system update downloads, and more space available for the user to use on the device. Given that these are rather constrained devices, every little bit (pun intended) helps.
the evidence still exists as it did before you touched the device
Technically speaking, no, it doesn't. Deliberately locking it in this way irretrievably wipes one of the keys used to unlock the device's master encryption key. A new key for use by FaceID won't be generated until and unless the phone is unlocked via a passcode.
The police can't access the device which is the same position they were before they handed it to you.
In one sense (not the legal one), sure. Legally, however, that logic is faulty. If the police say, "stop, you're under arrest", and I take off running in response, the fact that I'm just as NOT in their custody as before would—by your logic—mean that the situation is unchanged, right? So it isn't resisting arrest? Good luck arguing that in court.
Likewise, this situation isn't binary either: there are degrees of not having access. If the police have confiscated a safe of mine that's locked, they may ask me to unlock it using a key they know I have in my possession. If instead of unlocking the safe, I mangle the lock and weld the safe's door shut, the situation has changed. It's now much more difficult for them to gain access to the safe. The same holds true with the phone. If, instead of opening the phone, I take action that destroys a key to unlock the phone, I've changed things for them.
Does it not eventually lock for ever longer periods of time if you keep deliberately messing it up?
It eventually requires a passcode if it fails enough times, but if the police have a valid warrant requiring that you present something that is undeniably in your possession (e.g. your fingerprint, your face with a neutral expression, etc.), you're legally obligated to do so. Failing to deliver the thing could be viewed as obstructing an investigation. If your device gets locked behind a passcode because you intentionally botched it enough times, you would have tampered with evidence. The fact that you're refusing to comply with a valid court order could result in you being in contempt of court. And to rub salt in the wound, they may have taken an image of your device before handing it back to you to unlock, so your efforts wouldn't have accomplished anything, other than the addition of more charges against you.
All of which is to say, yes, it does, but you'd be doing so at your own risk.
It's an anthology series. And, if you watch through the end of series four, you'll discover that many of the episodes actually are in an interconnected world, with previous characters or events being referenced in at least one later episode.
This sounds like a “choose your own adventure” plot selection, akin to what was done with Mosaic, rather than the “viewer’s choice” style plot selection you seem to be thinking of. As such, your concern is rather moot, since it’s each person making a personal choice about how to view the story.
Netflix is realizing that as a company that owns its own content delivery clients, they’re in an ideal position to try to leverage this sort of content. In contrast, HBO had to convince people to download a separate app for Mosaic, which likely only saw as much success as it did because they literally gave it away for free. Had it been limited to HBO’s current subscribers, they would have effectively limiting it to just those subscribers who are using or willing to use an app (i.e. a subset of their subscribers, since most watch exclusively via a cable package), whereas with Netflix, that’s their entire customer base.
Of course there is plenty of room for improvement. There's no reason the watch couldn't make a unique beeping sound as it counts down to remind the wearer to disable it. There's no reason it couldn't alert emergency services AND text/email/call a list of contacts. There's no reason not to allow customizations like "slide to call" rather than "slide to cancel", at the wearer's own risk.
I think the Watch already does ALL of those things, actually. It vibrates on your wrist for that minute to try to get your attention, it alerts your emergency contacts if you’ve opted to have them alerted, and “slide to call” is simply its normal behavior, which you you can make the default by never enabling the detection.
Facebook can be required to take "reasonable" steps to execute the warrant, and be reimbursed for those steps.
Not so! While it’s true that that’s normally the case, CALEA specifically precludes law enforcement from demanding changes. All they can do is demand that telecommunications services make use of their existing functionality.
Wiretapping was already possible with POTS due to the way that switchboards operated, but Apple was able to push back with CALEA when the FBI demanded a backdoor after the San Bernardino shooting. Because Apple’s system was designed to prevent their own access to that data, the FBI was unable to compel Apple to make the desired changes, and the FBI dropped the case as soon as they saw that Apple intended to fight it in court since it would have set a precedent the FBI didn’t want.