No, no, it can’t be, because everyone knows this is Hunter Biden’s laptop sending emails through Hillary’s server. C’mon it’s always the evil Dems.

*config?

Or start holding the decision-making executives criminally liable.

Absolutely. If people accept it they’ll keep doing it.

However, if they’re departing from a straightforward price tag where prices are consistent and pre-agreed, it sounds like we’re going back to the time of bartering. Anywhere that implements this, customers should be prepared to say no at the till. They might backtrack on this when customers with a huge trolley pull up at the checkout and then refuse to pay because they disagree with the amount.

If by discrete ICs you mean custom logic baked into silicon, yes that’s always been expensive. I was referring to off-the-shelf ICs that cost pennies, which used to be orders of magnitude cheaper even than PICs (in the days before Internet connected fridges).

Before the term software engineer was commonplace, electronic engineers used design circuits around off-the-shelf components, like the venerable TI 555 timer or op-amps, and design a circuit around them. To do it they’d need the datasheets (https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lm555.pdf). Hobbyists and aspiring young engineers would buy books like this: (https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/det/14021/IC-555-Projects/), which were like O’Reilly cookbooks for electronics circuits. The equipment to program a PIC used to be way beyond the reach of hobbyists, and wasn’t necessary for manufacturers producing simple control circuits. If you look at circuitboards from that time you’ll see some ICs with pins that aren’t connected to anything because those just weren’t needed for the circuit, much like you describe the empty sockets in modern boards.

It absolutely was possible in the pre-Internet days to design a fully functional fridge, and more, without writing code of any kind, and it was cheap too.

There’s plenty of middle ground. We had integrated circuits embedded in circuit boards for a long time before re-programmable chips started appearing, and those ones certainly didn’t connect to the Internet and brick themselves.

Everything seems super intelligent compared to Dumold Trump.

Maybe it should read “170,000 nonprofits having to invoke their data restoration strategies and now in the market for ethical cloud providers, after Microsoft predictably lets them down”.

Microsoft did a crap thing, but regardless of the reason the data went away, their customers should all have had disaster recovery strategies and robust backups. The more precious the data, the more important it is to have robust backups.

I still feel for those affected, as I have lost data to my own mistakes in the past.

I’ve often thought that we could polarise the headlight glass one way, and then windscreen glass the other. The glare off the road would still hit you but the lights themselves would be much darker, but still enough for you to see they’re there. The day-runners in the corners could still be unpolarised so you’d still see the vehicle. It’d be a bit more expensive and require collaboration between the manufacturers which are probably two large reasons why it would never happen.

I’m sure solving this problem isn’t beyond the wit of humanity, but is beyond the expense threshold that the oligarchs will tolerate from their dividends.

I knew it! He’s must be using vim. Mystery solved.

Chris Titus’ cleanup tools have a Microsoft AI removal tool, and also runs the O&O Shutup tool. I can’t vouch for it because I don’t use Windows but I believe the toolkit is pretty good.

https://github.com/christitustech/winutil

Spurious shmurious! The causation here is clear: eating butter generates wind farms. Eat more butter to save the planet everyone! It’s undeniable science!

Removed by mod

And, why is it always folk like him telling everyone else what they should be doing? They act like they’re the ones running the show and we all need to do what we’re told. If AI takes his job, will he be retraining as a plumber?

I wonder how long it will take for shareholders to experiment with replacing CEOs with agentic AIs. They’d certainly be good at spouting crap like Jensen is doing.

I know it’s only a joke, but this comment highlights something that many folk in power seem to forget.

Houses and their doormats are in a single physical location that has an unambiguous legal jurisdiction. In any given country, if you break into a house you are subject to that country’s laws.

Not so with the Internet. It’s very difficult to legislate for something like this because other countries’ laws can just ignore you, and you have no power over those countries and their laws. So, making things physically secure is far more effective than legislation, especially when it comes to the Internet.

It might depend on the airline. I used to travel with Ryanair frequently, and special tickets (whatever they were called) were only available for 1/3 of the plane’s capacity on a first-come-first-serve basis. Those upgrades got you to choose your seat, skip the queue and guaranteed space for a carry-on bag. All of those things follow a similar pattern: if everyone did it the system would break, which is likely why they picked 1/3 as a cap. It’s actually quite clever, although I still dislike the ongoing enshittification of air travel that the budget airlines have caused, despite benefiting from it for a couple of years.

The article suggests it wasn’t the driver’s garage. The driver’s story seems to be “It was driving itself happily and then went mad and crashed into this random person’s garage!”.

It’s down to the crash investigators to find out whether that’s the truth, or the driver crashed it themselves and then just blamed the AP.

In your initial response, you acknowledged that you understood what was meant by “sensors” in the context of the comment, but then the rest of your response was dismissive in tone, and implied that you believe their statement to be incorrect despite your previous acknowledgement. Your follow-up responses are doubling-down on this.

As others have pointed out, arguing about the canonical definition of the word “sensor” is not adding anything to the discussion around the potential cause of the collision.