I've always hated Crustyroll.

Crustyroll got it's start by standing on the backs of good noble fansubbers who provided their subs for free; and now they've come full circle. They became an enemy rather quickly when it profited them.

Actually; (basically) SIP over (basically) IPSec sounds pretty correct. Wish the dense technical manuals I read had explained it that way; makes a lot more sense to me as a Net Admin type of IT person.

I do remember reading that the protocol was basically encapsulated. Dunno about any encryption; probably there's not any at the IPSec level. I do know that the SIMs themselves probably contain certs that have some value; I just don't know if they handle any encryption or if they're just lightweight little numbers for authentication only.

If I'm understanding how 'WiFi Calling" works; it's still "identifying you" to the cell provider the same way; via your SIM. The only difference is they don't get an exact location because you're not using any cell towers typically.

I do suspect SIMs and eSIMs are still doing all the heavy cryptographic signing done on a typical phone network though...they're just not screaming your IMEI/IMSI all over open or even encrypted airwaves; nor is a WiFI signal triangulate-able typically due to it's short range.

The reason things like Alcohol are "considered and generally recognized as safe" has a lot to do with their effect length on the body. It's possible to isolate someone intoxicated this way for up to 24 hours and see them recover all of their facilities in the short term.

Granted; it still has long-term effects that are bad, just not show-stoppingly so, and it only affects people who actually abuse the stuff long-term for many years.

I do agree we should be a lot tougher on Alcohol use in general. Maybe not Prohibition levels; but some framework to cut off people from acquiring quantities that can intoxicate them so badly that they pose a danger to themselves and others.

They faffed around, and now they're finding out that, yes, the experts were in fact right! Restricting abortion access does cause more deaths and poor health outcomes!

I am glad to see it when the selfish people at the top fall so far down the hill. They orchestrate their own falling typically, much like Ikarus in his waxen wings, falling when he flew too close to the sun in direct sunlight at the height of a hot summer's day.

As for Google; I hope the DoJ not only pulls up all of the resultant weeds in the garden, but also makes sure to till and salt the soil thoroughly, so that no part of Google can ever hope to rejoin it's other pieces to form a monopoly or 'anything like a monopoly' on anything, ever, again.

Google must rightfully suffer a most painful and enduring 'Corporate Death Penalty' so to speak; in order to ensure that no company ever gets so bold again. We must also repeat this with several other large companies like Microsoft, Amazon and Apple too; as well as a few other companies I'm unable to name because I'm unaware of how ridiculously massive and monopolistic they are.

Legitimately I question that this is even newsworthy.

It appears that these women are harming nobody and are partaking of the drug(s) safely and sensibly in a manner that ensures that no one is being significantly endangered. Yes the residual dangers exist and bad trips can happen to pretty much anyone. I don't feel as if they're even posing a danger to their children; if this is in fact being done in such a way that the kids are never being exposed to their parents while they're in an altered mental state due to hallucinogenic intoxication. If it isn't; yeah; I could see why a local branch of child services might pay them a visit. However, I'm not going to make that negative assumption.

I don't particularly commend the women, nor the news outlet, for coming out about this though; it is still very much technically illegal by current law. But, I also do agree that the stigma attached to drug use, even when done so responsibly, is in fact ridiculous and stupid in general. However, I don't see a better way of achieving what that does...so I couldn't suggest any better alternatives and I don't support going back to a previous era in Law where drugs that factually are provably dangerous, for some reason, are not regulated. Reasonable and Sensible Regulations on dangerous Drugs are REQUIRED; it's just that some people have a different definition of 'Reasonable and Sensible' which has to be ironed into a proper consensus for society.

This is exactly the kind of task I'd expect AI to be useful for; it goes through a massive amount of freshly digitized data and it scans for, and flags for human action (and/or) review, things that are specified by a human for the AI to identify in a large batch of data.

Basically AI doing data-processing drudge work that no human could ever hope to achieve with any level of speed approaching that at which the AI can do it.

Do I think the AI should be doing these tasks unsupervised? Absolutely not! But the fact of the matter is; the AIs are being supervised in this task by the human clerks who are, at least in theory, expected to read the deed over and make sure it makes some sort of legal sense and that it didn't just cut out some harmless turn of phrase written into the covenant that actually has no racist meaning, intention or function. I'm assuming a lot of good faith here, but I'm guessing the human who is guiding the AI making these mass edits can just, by means of physicality, pull out the original document and see which language originally existed if it became an issue.

To be clear; I do think it's a good thing that the law is mandating and making these kinds of edits to property covenants in general to bring them more in line with modern law.

They certainly make it easier to do so; by making it a switch you can toggle; which allows you to generate an identity; or choose not to and roll with the identity they've already seen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem

The effect is real.

Agreed.

Without concepts of privacy; things will soon fall into fascism.

(People can’t DM you)

This is false. However, you must generate an "identifier / group / channel" for them and share that link out-of-band to them." Basically it means nobody can slide into your DMs unless you yourself consent to it and forge a connection with them to do so. It does offer a way to invite other users to chat; but the other user must consent as well...which makes it far safer usually.