A vital part of freedom is having the freedom to choose to trust whom or what you want to trust or to choose not to even care about privacy over service. If the government wants to get into the business of policing the add-ins, fine, though I personally feel that policing to catch crimes before they happen is an overreach of the Constitutional duties given to government. But policing has to be to detect a real crime. Do not limit what I can do for the purpose of protecting me from myself. That is a massive overreach.
Google, as the private business offering the API, does have a right to police how their product is used given that misuse could damage their business. They especially have the right to at least verify that the add-ins are correctly disclosing and are not violating their rules. But, I am the only one with the right to decide what level of privacy I'm willing to sacrifice to get services.
I have a similar viewpoint though I prefer to put "value" at the forefront as opposed to "functionality". Placing "functionality" at the forefront can put you on a wasteful upgrade schedule where you're paying a lot for "functionality" with very little added "value".
With all of that in mind, I really feel that "iPhone Excess Max" is very appropriate though "iPhone Maximum Excess" would have been even better.
It is well known that there is a direct relationship between the charge range in which you utilize the battery and its lifetime. So it is definitely not like the jumpers.
Your airline example is very close to what happens in many modern vehicles. I believe that there are other high end cars besides Tesla that have sport modes that can be enabled by the owner on a limited basis before voiding the warranty.
Virtually every vehicle has an RPM limit, often enforced by computer in modern vehicles. Presumably, any of them that reach the point of being able to perform over-the-air upgrades could have their RPM limitations removed remotely. Many modern cars can also change shift points electronically which could be used to allow the car to run in a sportier fashion while causing a loss in drivetrain lifetime. More sophisticated ones can allow metered usage of the sportier modes, but most would simply void the drivetrain warranty (due to the fact that you replaced the chip controlling the drivetrain) assuming they find out what you did.
I think this is one of the reasons that a lot of the entrances have been envisioned as being from garages or parking lots. There is a lot less running under those locations than under the streets. Keep them deep and the tunnels can use the right of ways of the streets, but the downshafts will be going down to the sides of all of that mess.
In addition, these surface tunnels can't just drop straight into the main loops. To be able to carry any real volume in the main loops, you can't have acceleration occurring on the loop. If you accelerate on the loop, you have to maintain a ridiculous gap between vehicles to allow for a car or carrier to enter the loop and accelerate before being rear ended. The throughput would suck.
The solution is to have lots of acceleration and deceleration tunnels that merge with the loop and some automated management of the merging process. Given that tunnels are planned to be cheap, this is likely the intended solution.
So a connection involves an elevator to get through the crud closest to the surface using the shortest route (straight down cuts through much less crud than ramping down) connecting to a ramp that leaves the loop, passes a bunch of elevators, and rejoins the loop.
Extra points to anyone who can design an off ramp that splits off in such as way as to make it impossible for any vehicle to ever hit the divider because that is the only point in the system where a head on collision with a wall could happen.
Except that Tesla is selling a battery and a warranty. The way in which the battery is used affects the cost of that warranty to Tesla. When used as a lower capacity battery it lasts longer. The owner has the right to pay for the higher capacity. In that case, much of the extra payment goes towards replacing batteries sooner than would otherwise be necessary.
Most manufacturers would simply never reveal the higher capacity that shortens the life. That is the only reason we haven't heard of practices like this before.
How is this different from cars which have governors? If you remove the governor, you void the warranty,,, for good reason. The car will be able to go faster,,, for a while.
The most critical and expensive parts for Apple's phones are now the A11 and OLED displays. I read a breakdown a while ago that indicated that due to the display crunch, over half of the current iPhone's production costs (which are less than half the consumer cost) were in the display module and the processor.
The A11 requires a 10nm process and is currently made by TSMC. There is no working 10nm process in America. Intel's 14nm is roughly equivalent, but that would be a significant redesign for what would be an obsolete product by the time you did it. Anything new they decide to do will be on a 7nm process or better. They could perhaps design for Intel's ever-upcoming 10nm process, but Intel won't have spare volume anytime soon. There is no indication on Samsung's sites that I could find that their Austin facility has anything better than their current 14nm in the works. That is inadequate for iPhone 8 or above products.
The OLED displays have no significant manufacturing in America that I know of. The cost of LG's new OLED display factory in China is $4.7 billion according to one source I just flew by. That would likely be double or triple in America and take years to bring online. Not happening.
They could use Intel's radio. That's something. Perhaps they could find some memory made here.
The assembly of the iPhone is a small portion of its costs. All of the significant parts such as processors, displays, chipsets, etc. are made by TSMC, Samsung, etc. overseas and would still be subject to tariffs. So moving assembly here would do little to decrease the costs of the tariffs. And because we would be forced to use more robotics to keep costs reasonable, it would also do little to create jobs.
And, does he really think anyone wants to be building factories while his tariffs are in effect? Most of what goes in a modern factory is made overseas and subject to, guess what, Trump's tariffs.
Moreover, why encourage Apple to move the least sophisticated, lowest skilled portion of the work here? Is that what Trump feels would restore our allegedly lost greatness? How about encouraging home-based chip and display manufacturing? The only US foundry working on 7nm just gave up. Intel is behind on 10nm. The only possible source for Apple's new processors is, guess who, Taiwan.
If they are building a data center in Singapore, it is because they have a need for the computing power in that region.
Data obeys the speed of light. It would take at least 45 milliseconds for data to travel from Singapore to San Francisco assuming the fiber is routed absolutely straight. That's too long to allow reasonable response times given everything else involved in creating responses. Data centers must be regionally based to provide decent response times.
There is no excuse for this because there is a way to do it right. The state is not properly representing the prisoners in this negotiation and really has nothing to lose in doing so unless they are getting a kickback.
If jpay wants the contract, they should be agreeable to a limited period of exchange of existing licenses for new licenses on their system. It's a reasonable cost of doing business. The state should just write that into the contract, along with making the contract long to help make the cost worthwhile, and be done with it. If jpay doesn't like it, someone else will.
It is unlikely to be near as much music as claimed. Most of the devices have likely died by now (inmates don't get quality devices) and many if not most of those who purchased music are probably out of prison.
Which means they should care about wage disparity. On average, over $7100 per year of income per worker has shifted from the bottom 90% to the top 10%. That's a lot of money that they could be using for family expenses.
Note that the wage growth numbers in my above post are "real" wage growth which does, in fact, mean that the 90% has seen 20% wage growth beyond inflation over the last 40 years (assuming inflation numbers reflect reality in respect to the cost of living of people at the lower end of the scale which is certainly debatable).
So, we have actually succeeded in beating inflation across the board and are still making gains against inflation in all but the top 1% despite buying cheap goods from others.
Exactly. For 90% of us, wage growth has been anemic, less than 1% per year on average, for 40 years, and cheap foreign goods have been a saving grace only in the last 15-20.
Instead of blaming wage issues on cheap foreign goods, they should be blaming the necessity to shift to cheap foreign goods on the wage issues. After 20 years of increasing income inequality, the 90% of us getting nowhere could no longer afford American quality and had to just buy what we could afford. That resulted in the last 20 years of increasing imports of cheap foreign goods.
Now, instead of fixing the inequality problem so that we can afford to buy American, they want to just force us back? It won't work because we simply don't have the money. I have some choice feelings about that kind of strategy.
It is funny that wage growth is suddenly considered a problem in the last decade. We are rich.
Between 1979 and 2007, the bottom 90% of the US only saw a total of 16.7% wage growth. From 2007 to 2016, the bottom 90% grew another 4%.
If you look at the 90th to 99th percentile, you see wage growth of 56.9% over the 1979 to 2007 time frame, and another 7.9% since.
It is only when you look at the top 1% that you see wage growth of 156.2% from 1979 to 2007 and -2.9% since.
So, 90% of us can legitimately complain about wage growth sucking since 1979. It has been much less than 1% per year. But this is only a problem now that the top 1% have fallen from their routine 4% per year wage growth that we have a problem?
Whatever. Cry me a river. Why does it seem that the media only represents the elite?
Recent wage growth trends look more like a slight downpayment on an income distribution correction to me. 90% of us would be vastly happier if we simply returned to a 1970's income distribution without any change in the overall total income. Over 40 years, that bulk of our nation has only recently crossed a total of 20% gain. The rest of you, especially the top 1% who have grown by 311% over those same 40 years, are welcome to at least show enough shame to shut up if not to lobby for change.
This guy says he is not deep state. He is a Trump appointee. He's a new zealot that Trump brought in. He believes in what he believes is Trump's agenda (after all - who really knows because Trump intentionally keeps it unpredictable).
This is what you get when you surround yourself with doe-eyed "believers" instead of professionals prepared to execute directions using the complex mechanisms of State that few without years of experience can wield professionally and effectively.
This is what you get when you replace the "deep state" professionals with party-affiliated zealots.
I'm a coder too. And I would still be a coder if I never wrote another program. I code many times a day for things other than writing programs because it is the most convenient way to solve all sorts of problems.
Coding is just problem solving, and it is an excellent way to do so. I think if a kid can write a script on the spot to solve a problem in math, it is the same as writing the equations out on paper. If they can write something to draw a picture, it is the same as doing it with pen and paper. If they learn to use the macro capabilities of their writing programs to their full extent, they will be much more efficient writers. If they learn high school physics by writing simulations to experiment because coding to solve problems has been taught to them from the beginning, they will be good at physics. If they learn statistics through using programming with statistics to find the answer to real world problems, awesome. etc. etc.
For some reason, people see coding as a way to write programs. I don't understand that.
I am a computer engineer and can say that ever since learning how to code, I've routinely used coding as a means to solve problems - one time problems.
I code to code. If I'm editing code that I know has a pattern to it (almost everything does), I find it faster to throw the pattern into a macro than to use manual means - even for one time use. Because of this, I prefer editors with macro languages that look like regular programming languages.
While working on large scale projects, I write code to detect errors, often project-specific, that I've seen repeated and incorporate it into the check-in process. I also often write a precompiler that incorporates some language extensions to cover common project coding patterns.
I code to perform a quick calculation. I code to answer virtually any complicated question involving math. I find it quicker to code than to use a calculator and with coding if I make a mistake, I can fix it rather than starting over. Usually, I do this in a spreadsheet though, unlike most, I am quick to dive into the macro interface. If no spreadsheet is available, I find that most good command line interfaces have quick calculation ability and there is always perl from the command line.
I code documents. I actually prefer MS Word because I use the macro capabilities with virtually every decent sized document I write. And documents with regular patterns are usually easier to create from databases using merge macros.
In my personal life, when I dive into doing a drawing to imagine how some room would look with furniture or a painting scheme, I use a CAD program that lets me code the drawing. I find it much faster, more precise, and vastly easier to tweak a drawing that is coded than to use the mouse interface.
I often explore topics in the news by writing some code to do quick little simulations or run the numbers for a sanity check.
To put it simply, coding has become a very valuable way to solve problems of all sorts in my life. It is my version of scratching stuff out on napkins.
I think it would be even more valuable if it had been ingrained into me at the earliest levels and been a tool that I used in all of my classes that involved any sort of problem solving - and note clearly that I see writing as an engineering problem solving operation too. I cannot think of a class that wouldn't benefit from coding. Even art. I have coded art many times.
Yes. I think Tesla understood this point from the beginning. We don't have concrete data exposing how bad people really do drive. If you walk through the parking lot at a Walmart or somewhere and look over every vehicle for damage, most will have some and much of that damage obviously occurred as a result of some accident that insurance probably didn't get involved in (probably didn't have comprehensive coverage or felt it was too trivial).
Not having that concrete data on those not using autopilot radically distorts comparisons when autopiloted vehicles are required to report every trivial little incident even including some that caused no damage.
So Tesla gets more than training data. By also tracking some of the data on those vehicles not using autopilot, they get data on the reality of human driving that can eventually be used to help make the case some day (in addition to helping to train the autopilot on what not to do or what bad things to expect from non-autopiloted vehicles around them).
It's not really that I don't trust Google per se. The problem is that most of these organizations that hold your data will just turn your account over to someone who knows enough about you to answer all of the right questions or can compromise your 2FA - plus they must answer subpoenas and that doesn't require the police.
About 12 years ago, I created a subpoena for ISP information that enabled me to prove that someone with a protection order against them was violating it and stalking his victim. I am neither an attorney or in any law enforcement. I simply looked up how to do it for a friend. The victim simply took the subpoena to the judge who stamped it, I hand-delivered it to the ISP, and had the information the next day (primarily what account and phone number had been given a specific dynamic IP at a specific time - which did prove by the weight of evidence standard that applied that the "anonymous" emails she was getting were coming from the stalker in violation of the protection order. Anyone involved in a civil case can do that.
The experience taught me that subpoenas are far less limited than most imagine.
Your point on the clipboard is disturbing (thank you for pointing it out). Can background apps access it? As in record everything that hits it?
But that does not seem like a tool that would be used by your typical perpetrator. Most violations of people's security are done for personal reasons by people they know in simple, amateur ways. I don't actually keep data on my systems that would be of value to authorities or hackers that would perform a more sophisticated attack (or even have such data that I can think of). But the simplest little things are often a mountain instead of a molehill in a personal relationship - especially in messaging systems.
I think most would stop if they understood that they are assuming responsibility for the other driver's safety. A couple of decades ago I knew a fellow who waved someone out into an oncoming car. He was determined to have partial fault in the situation because he was in a position to see the oncoming car and the other person wasn't.
True.The problem seems to be that when it is fairly common to have intersections that have double right turn lanes, people get so used to being able to do it that they do it when they should not. Intersection accidents are so common here that I have actually witnessed three occurring (not just driven by them as they were cleaning up the mess) in four years. One was a sideswipe due to people switching lanes during the stoplight turn (legal here). This is particularly dangerous because of the way your blind spot can move during a turn. One was someone turning right on red from the second lane who was hit by someone turning left with a green arrow and coming from in front of him. People turning right on red tend to only look left to see if it is clear.
The fourth was someone turning right on red from the second lane (sans blinker as always) in a case where neither of the two right lanes were dedicated turn lanes. When you turn right, you tend to verify the light is red, look to see if the left is clear, and then go. This fellow did this and had the misfortune that the light changed right as he went. Someone in the outer lane was timing the light and hit him in the passenger side.
Also, where on earth are you getting 1 second gap per 10mph?
Standard drivers ed rule. It accounts for both the increase in stopping distance and the increase in reaction time that occurs with dangers further in front of you. If a driver in front of you is stopped instantly by hitting something fixed that you couldn't see around him to see or has a collision due to a vehicle running in front of him from the side that leaves debris at that point in the road, you have to stop before the point of impact. If they get sideswiped or have a flat or just slam on their brakes, yes, you generally have more time because their motion carries things forward more from the point of the occurrence. Rear ending an accident is your fault for not leaving enough room in almost all situations.
It will help as the presence of the technology continues to highlight just how unsafe we are. It is vastly worse than 30+K deaths per year. We have little data on the many millions of minor accidents and scrapes, especially those that aren't among the probably 20% or so that actually get turned into insurance, or on the millions of minor injuries, many of which don't bother going to the hospital. I'd be surprised if equalling what we believe is our safety level would not be equivalent to that first 10X safety improvement.
The data would simply be transferred already encrypted and I would assume the private key would be separately encrypted before transfer. As another responder suggested, this would require a backup password to be created.
Or they could just provide a means of copying the private key to the copy buffer on the device. I'd have no trouble pasting it into my password vault interface. The vault itself is on google drive and thus backed up.
Slashdot Mirror
A vital part of freedom is having the freedom to choose to trust whom or what you want to trust or to choose not to even care about privacy over service. If the government wants to get into the business of policing the add-ins, fine, though I personally feel that policing to catch crimes before they happen is an overreach of the Constitutional duties given to government. But policing has to be to detect a real crime. Do not limit what I can do for the purpose of protecting me from myself. That is a massive overreach.
Google, as the private business offering the API, does have a right to police how their product is used given that misuse could damage their business. They especially have the right to at least verify that the add-ins are correctly disclosing and are not violating their rules. But, I am the only one with the right to decide what level of privacy I'm willing to sacrifice to get services.
I have a similar viewpoint though I prefer to put "value" at the forefront as opposed to "functionality". Placing "functionality" at the forefront can put you on a wasteful upgrade schedule where you're paying a lot for "functionality" with very little added "value".
With all of that in mind, I really feel that "iPhone Excess Max" is very appropriate though "iPhone Maximum Excess" would have been even better.
It is well known that there is a direct relationship between the charge range in which you utilize the battery and its lifetime. So it is definitely not like the jumpers.
Your airline example is very close to what happens in many modern vehicles. I believe that there are other high end cars besides Tesla that have sport modes that can be enabled by the owner on a limited basis before voiding the warranty.
Virtually every vehicle has an RPM limit, often enforced by computer in modern vehicles. Presumably, any of them that reach the point of being able to perform over-the-air upgrades could have their RPM limitations removed remotely. Many modern cars can also change shift points electronically which could be used to allow the car to run in a sportier fashion while causing a loss in drivetrain lifetime. More sophisticated ones can allow metered usage of the sportier modes, but most would simply void the drivetrain warranty (due to the fact that you replaced the chip controlling the drivetrain) assuming they find out what you did.
I think this is one of the reasons that a lot of the entrances have been envisioned as being from garages or parking lots. There is a lot less running under those locations than under the streets. Keep them deep and the tunnels can use the right of ways of the streets, but the downshafts will be going down to the sides of all of that mess.
In addition, these surface tunnels can't just drop straight into the main loops. To be able to carry any real volume in the main loops, you can't have acceleration occurring on the loop. If you accelerate on the loop, you have to maintain a ridiculous gap between vehicles to allow for a car or carrier to enter the loop and accelerate before being rear ended. The throughput would suck.
The solution is to have lots of acceleration and deceleration tunnels that merge with the loop and some automated management of the merging process. Given that tunnels are planned to be cheap, this is likely the intended solution.
So a connection involves an elevator to get through the crud closest to the surface using the shortest route (straight down cuts through much less crud than ramping down) connecting to a ramp that leaves the loop, passes a bunch of elevators, and rejoins the loop.
Extra points to anyone who can design an off ramp that splits off in such as way as to make it impossible for any vehicle to ever hit the divider because that is the only point in the system where a head on collision with a wall could happen.
Except that Tesla is selling a battery and a warranty. The way in which the battery is used affects the cost of that warranty to Tesla. When used as a lower capacity battery it lasts longer. The owner has the right to pay for the higher capacity. In that case, much of the extra payment goes towards replacing batteries sooner than would otherwise be necessary.
Most manufacturers would simply never reveal the higher capacity that shortens the life. That is the only reason we haven't heard of practices like this before.
How is this different from cars which have governors? If you remove the governor, you void the warranty,,, for good reason. The car will be able to go faster,,, for a while.
The most critical and expensive parts for Apple's phones are now the A11 and OLED displays. I read a breakdown a while ago that indicated that due to the display crunch, over half of the current iPhone's production costs (which are less than half the consumer cost) were in the display module and the processor.
The A11 requires a 10nm process and is currently made by TSMC. There is no working 10nm process in America. Intel's 14nm is roughly equivalent, but that would be a significant redesign for what would be an obsolete product by the time you did it. Anything new they decide to do will be on a 7nm process or better. They could perhaps design for Intel's ever-upcoming 10nm process, but Intel won't have spare volume anytime soon. There is no indication on Samsung's sites that I could find that their Austin facility has anything better than their current 14nm in the works. That is inadequate for iPhone 8 or above products.
The OLED displays have no significant manufacturing in America that I know of. The cost of LG's new OLED display factory in China is $4.7 billion according to one source I just flew by. That would likely be double or triple in America and take years to bring online. Not happening.
They could use Intel's radio. That's something. Perhaps they could find some memory made here.
The assembly of the iPhone is a small portion of its costs. All of the significant parts such as processors, displays, chipsets, etc. are made by TSMC, Samsung, etc. overseas and would still be subject to tariffs. So moving assembly here would do little to decrease the costs of the tariffs. And because we would be forced to use more robotics to keep costs reasonable, it would also do little to create jobs.
And, does he really think anyone wants to be building factories while his tariffs are in effect? Most of what goes in a modern factory is made overseas and subject to, guess what, Trump's tariffs.
Moreover, why encourage Apple to move the least sophisticated, lowest skilled portion of the work here? Is that what Trump feels would restore our allegedly lost greatness? How about encouraging home-based chip and display manufacturing? The only US foundry working on 7nm just gave up. Intel is behind on 10nm. The only possible source for Apple's new processors is, guess who, Taiwan.
If they are building a data center in Singapore, it is because they have a need for the computing power in that region.
Data obeys the speed of light. It would take at least 45 milliseconds for data to travel from Singapore to San Francisco assuming the fiber is routed absolutely straight. That's too long to allow reasonable response times given everything else involved in creating responses. Data centers must be regionally based to provide decent response times.
There is no excuse for this because there is a way to do it right. The state is not properly representing the prisoners in this negotiation and really has nothing to lose in doing so unless they are getting a kickback.
If jpay wants the contract, they should be agreeable to a limited period of exchange of existing licenses for new licenses on their system. It's a reasonable cost of doing business. The state should just write that into the contract, along with making the contract long to help make the cost worthwhile, and be done with it. If jpay doesn't like it, someone else will.
It is unlikely to be near as much music as claimed. Most of the devices have likely died by now (inmates don't get quality devices) and many if not most of those who purchased music are probably out of prison.
Which means they should care about wage disparity. On average, over $7100 per year of income per worker has shifted from the bottom 90% to the top 10%. That's a lot of money that they could be using for family expenses.
Note that the wage growth numbers in my above post are "real" wage growth which does, in fact, mean that the 90% has seen 20% wage growth beyond inflation over the last 40 years (assuming inflation numbers reflect reality in respect to the cost of living of people at the lower end of the scale which is certainly debatable).
So, we have actually succeeded in beating inflation across the board and are still making gains against inflation in all but the top 1% despite buying cheap goods from others.
Exactly. For 90% of us, wage growth has been anemic, less than 1% per year on average, for 40 years, and cheap foreign goods have been a saving grace only in the last 15-20.
Instead of blaming wage issues on cheap foreign goods, they should be blaming the necessity to shift to cheap foreign goods on the wage issues. After 20 years of increasing income inequality, the 90% of us getting nowhere could no longer afford American quality and had to just buy what we could afford. That resulted in the last 20 years of increasing imports of cheap foreign goods.
Now, instead of fixing the inequality problem so that we can afford to buy American, they want to just force us back? It won't work because we simply don't have the money. I have some choice feelings about that kind of strategy.
It is funny that wage growth is suddenly considered a problem in the last decade. We are rich.
Between 1979 and 2007, the bottom 90% of the US only saw a total of 16.7% wage growth. From 2007 to 2016, the bottom 90% grew another 4%.
If you look at the 90th to 99th percentile, you see wage growth of 56.9% over the 1979 to 2007 time frame, and another 7.9% since.
It is only when you look at the top 1% that you see wage growth of 156.2% from 1979 to 2007 and -2.9% since.
So, 90% of us can legitimately complain about wage growth sucking since 1979. It has been much less than 1% per year. But this is only a problem now that the top 1% have fallen from their routine 4% per year wage growth that we have a problem?
Whatever. Cry me a river. Why does it seem that the media only represents the elite?
Recent wage growth trends look more like a slight downpayment on an income distribution correction to me. 90% of us would be vastly happier if we simply returned to a 1970's income distribution without any change in the overall total income. Over 40 years, that bulk of our nation has only recently crossed a total of 20% gain. The rest of you, especially the top 1% who have grown by 311% over those same 40 years, are welcome to at least show enough shame to shut up if not to lobby for change.
data
This guy says he is not deep state. He is a Trump appointee. He's a new zealot that Trump brought in. He believes in what he believes is Trump's agenda (after all - who really knows because Trump intentionally keeps it unpredictable).
This is what you get when you surround yourself with doe-eyed "believers" instead of professionals prepared to execute directions using the complex mechanisms of State that few without years of experience can wield professionally and effectively.
This is what you get when you replace the "deep state" professionals with party-affiliated zealots.
I'm a coder too. And I would still be a coder if I never wrote another program. I code many times a day for things other than writing programs because it is the most convenient way to solve all sorts of problems.
Coding is just problem solving, and it is an excellent way to do so. I think if a kid can write a script on the spot to solve a problem in math, it is the same as writing the equations out on paper. If they can write something to draw a picture, it is the same as doing it with pen and paper. If they learn to use the macro capabilities of their writing programs to their full extent, they will be much more efficient writers. If they learn high school physics by writing simulations to experiment because coding to solve problems has been taught to them from the beginning, they will be good at physics. If they learn statistics through using programming with statistics to find the answer to real world problems, awesome. etc. etc.
For some reason, people see coding as a way to write programs. I don't understand that.
I am a computer engineer and can say that ever since learning how to code, I've routinely used coding as a means to solve problems - one time problems.
I code to code. If I'm editing code that I know has a pattern to it (almost everything does), I find it faster to throw the pattern into a macro than to use manual means - even for one time use. Because of this, I prefer editors with macro languages that look like regular programming languages.
While working on large scale projects, I write code to detect errors, often project-specific, that I've seen repeated and incorporate it into the check-in process. I also often write a precompiler that incorporates some language extensions to cover common project coding patterns.
I code to perform a quick calculation. I code to answer virtually any complicated question involving math. I find it quicker to code than to use a calculator and with coding if I make a mistake, I can fix it rather than starting over. Usually, I do this in a spreadsheet though, unlike most, I am quick to dive into the macro interface. If no spreadsheet is available, I find that most good command line interfaces have quick calculation ability and there is always perl from the command line.
I code documents. I actually prefer MS Word because I use the macro capabilities with virtually every decent sized document I write. And documents with regular patterns are usually easier to create from databases using merge macros.
In my personal life, when I dive into doing a drawing to imagine how some room would look with furniture or a painting scheme, I use a CAD program that lets me code the drawing. I find it much faster, more precise, and vastly easier to tweak a drawing that is coded than to use the mouse interface.
I often explore topics in the news by writing some code to do quick little simulations or run the numbers for a sanity check.
To put it simply, coding has become a very valuable way to solve problems of all sorts in my life. It is my version of scratching stuff out on napkins.
I think it would be even more valuable if it had been ingrained into me at the earliest levels and been a tool that I used in all of my classes that involved any sort of problem solving - and note clearly that I see writing as an engineering problem solving operation too. I cannot think of a class that wouldn't benefit from coding. Even art. I have coded art many times.
Yes. I think Tesla understood this point from the beginning. We don't have concrete data exposing how bad people really do drive. If you walk through the parking lot at a Walmart or somewhere and look over every vehicle for damage, most will have some and much of that damage obviously occurred as a result of some accident that insurance probably didn't get involved in (probably didn't have comprehensive coverage or felt it was too trivial).
Not having that concrete data on those not using autopilot radically distorts comparisons when autopiloted vehicles are required to report every trivial little incident even including some that caused no damage.
So Tesla gets more than training data. By also tracking some of the data on those vehicles not using autopilot, they get data on the reality of human driving that can eventually be used to help make the case some day (in addition to helping to train the autopilot on what not to do or what bad things to expect from non-autopiloted vehicles around them).
It's not really that I don't trust Google per se. The problem is that most of these organizations that hold your data will just turn your account over to someone who knows enough about you to answer all of the right questions or can compromise your 2FA - plus they must answer subpoenas and that doesn't require the police.
About 12 years ago, I created a subpoena for ISP information that enabled me to prove that someone with a protection order against them was violating it and stalking his victim. I am neither an attorney or in any law enforcement. I simply looked up how to do it for a friend. The victim simply took the subpoena to the judge who stamped it, I hand-delivered it to the ISP, and had the information the next day (primarily what account and phone number had been given a specific dynamic IP at a specific time - which did prove by the weight of evidence standard that applied that the "anonymous" emails she was getting were coming from the stalker in violation of the protection order. Anyone involved in a civil case can do that.
The experience taught me that subpoenas are far less limited than most imagine.
Your point on the clipboard is disturbing (thank you for pointing it out). Can background apps access it? As in record everything that hits it?
But that does not seem like a tool that would be used by your typical perpetrator. Most violations of people's security are done for personal reasons by people they know in simple, amateur ways. I don't actually keep data on my systems that would be of value to authorities or hackers that would perform a more sophisticated attack (or even have such data that I can think of). But the simplest little things are often a mountain instead of a molehill in a personal relationship - especially in messaging systems.
I think most would stop if they understood that they are assuming responsibility for the other driver's safety. A couple of decades ago I knew a fellow who waved someone out into an oncoming car. He was determined to have partial fault in the situation because he was in a position to see the oncoming car and the other person wasn't.
True.The problem seems to be that when it is fairly common to have intersections that have double right turn lanes, people get so used to being able to do it that they do it when they should not. Intersection accidents are so common here that I have actually witnessed three occurring (not just driven by them as they were cleaning up the mess) in four years. One was a sideswipe due to people switching lanes during the stoplight turn (legal here). This is particularly dangerous because of the way your blind spot can move during a turn. One was someone turning right on red from the second lane who was hit by someone turning left with a green arrow and coming from in front of him. People turning right on red tend to only look left to see if it is clear.
The fourth was someone turning right on red from the second lane (sans blinker as always) in a case where neither of the two right lanes were dedicated turn lanes. When you turn right, you tend to verify the light is red, look to see if the left is clear, and then go. This fellow did this and had the misfortune that the light changed right as he went. Someone in the outer lane was timing the light and hit him in the passenger side.
If it was easy to provide mass transit in America, we'd have it.
Also, where on earth are you getting 1 second gap per 10mph?
Standard drivers ed rule. It accounts for both the increase in stopping distance and the increase in reaction time that occurs with dangers further in front of you. If a driver in front of you is stopped instantly by hitting something fixed that you couldn't see around him to see or has a collision due to a vehicle running in front of him from the side that leaves debris at that point in the road, you have to stop before the point of impact. If they get sideswiped or have a flat or just slam on their brakes, yes, you generally have more time because their motion carries things forward more from the point of the occurrence. Rear ending an accident is your fault for not leaving enough room in almost all situations.
It will help as the presence of the technology continues to highlight just how unsafe we are. It is vastly worse than 30+K deaths per year. We have little data on the many millions of minor accidents and scrapes, especially those that aren't among the probably 20% or so that actually get turned into insurance, or on the millions of minor injuries, many of which don't bother going to the hospital. I'd be surprised if equalling what we believe is our safety level would not be equivalent to that first 10X safety improvement.
The data would simply be transferred already encrypted and I would assume the private key would be separately encrypted before transfer. As another responder suggested, this would require a backup password to be created.
Or they could just provide a means of copying the private key to the copy buffer on the device. I'd have no trouble pasting it into my password vault interface. The vault itself is on google drive and thus backed up.