The account’s discovery raises questions on just how many bots are operating on X

I have yet to encounter an actual user of the platform X in the real world.

What then will they use to train it?

I think the key point is ownership. If the house is owned by an equity firm, even if it’s occupied it still counts as a house which could instead be owned by, well, homeowners.

I do, friend. I do.

As others have mentioned, a trusted 3rd party signs the correct key so your browser can check the key itself.

However, it should also be noted that your browser must have a list of trusted 3rd parties and their certificates used for signing in order to perform this check. It’s entirely possible to modify this list yourself. Some examples include:

• executing your own MITM style “*attack” in order to intercept and analyze local https traffic
• corporate network inspection and monitoring, where a gateway does the above for all devices on the network which have a CA cert pre-installed through some policy

So while it’s possible for trusted 3rd parties to issue valid certificates to bad actors, it’s also possible to add anyone (you, your employer, or some bad actors) to the trusted parties list.

How does it verify the command is valid? Does it run what I enter?

If so, just give it an infinite loop followed by some attempt at a tar command:

while true; do :; done; tar -xyz

That may be, but I’m not sure that’s a problem for a communication platform. I remember one time when they moved the share screen button around and some less tech savvy users thought the feature was removed!

Teams has something like chat threads too. E.g. you can reply to a message in a channel and it groups all replies, and you can also focus that thread if you want. But I agree it isn’t hidden “off the main topic” quite like slack threads.

I can’t say I’ve run into those issues with the new teams. Worst I’ve experienced is the app freezing during a call, which has happened twice in the last year or so.

Unpopular opinion I guess, but I think Teams is actually pretty good at my workplace.

Isn’t it available on PS5?

The argument for AM appears to be: the vast majority of adults will receive an emergency broadcast through their cellphone, but what happens if some event has already occurred which disabled large portions of the cellular network (which itself is an obvious target to create havoc)?

I’m fine with using AM as a redundant system for alerts.

Maybe make it more useful though for people in the car? I don’t need an AM button I’m never going to touch. Instead have it monitor whatever the emergency broadcast frequencies are automatically, and put something on screen when there is an alert. That would make it a useful “modern” feature as opposed to appearing as a legacy holdover.

Why make the penguins suffer?

Would anything have prevented an increase in rates? I’d bet if everyone got out of line, the rate increases would have been the same or higher. The only difference would be no one received $100.

Good. Please proceed as quickly as possible.

They’re assuming liability but that doesn’t mean it’s safe or more capable than other systems.

Yeah I don’t really understand either. Under those conditions any comparable level 2 system would operate without ever requiring the driver to take over.

Ah so it’s marketing BS then, got it.

How is this different from the capabilities of Tesla’s FSD, which is considered level 2? It seems like Mercedes just decided they’ll take on liability to classify an equivalent level 2 system as level 3.

It’s not enough.

The statement from Planned Parenthood includes:

Despite the Attorney General’s demand that PPSLR turn over all patient medical records related to gender-affirming care, the court ruled that individual patient records remain protected — a major victory for patients’ privacy rights.

I suspect this means the AG may receive de-identified records including procedure or diagnosis information, but not including any patient identifying information such as patient or billing account, name, address, social, date of birth, date of service, etc.

It could also include aggregate information about providers and facilities, especially if records are obtained under the guise of a fraud investigation, allowing the AG to target locations and providers where patients frequently obtain specific services. That route might be the most harmful to patients, for ex. if they’re unable to continue receiving care because of harassment of the providers.