You obviously have not been following Subaru, while what you are saying was once true, it has not been true for several years now.
Google "Subaru battery", read about all of the additional electrical problems that are the result of Subaru being unwilling to fix a problem that is the end result of them selling your data.
Subaru stopped making reliable cars somewhere around 2014.
Huh, interesting that regulation exists (and since 2008?), as basically nobody follows that 20mph speed limit. Certainly the options from Specialized, Trek, etc usually provide assist to 28mph.
I’m ambivalent about throttles - much more concerned about the mass and speed of some e-bike when they inevitably get used on sidewalks, multi-use paths, etc.
MySQL never had a problem with scaling to multi-core systems; Linux on the other hand did have a problem and its problems became everyone's problems. In the early 2000's the answer to multi-core Linux issues was to buy a system running one of the commercial UNIX. By 2006 or so this became a non-issue for Linux ( for the most part ).
Postgres uses an old design model which predates threads; I have no idea if they have made any progress in updating their design. In the past I have heard the core devs talk about how difficult it would be to do this.
Oracle Database moved to a hybrid process/thread model at some point, this is the superior solution ( I have no idea if it was done well or not, but from standpoint of how to achieve better leverage of CPU vs IO, this is the way ).
If the PG devs had enough time/money, I am sure they would move towards a hybrid model where the focus would be on processor affinity with IO being all tied to events.
A number of years ago when my daughter was in the second grade the school expected them to turn in homework via this crappy power point knock-off app that would constantly crash.
I had her eventually just take screen shots and send them to the printer. From there? She would fill in her answers, take a picture of the work, and then drop the image into the power point knockoff.
We got a note from the Principal about how "printing" was not supported.
Trump's attorneys did not say "the special counsel that prosecuted him was not properly appointed by an act of Congress", Justice Thomas brought this up in oral arguments. Trump's attorneys admitted in oral arguments that they had not brought this up during the appeal, so as an argument it was not saved.
Further more, historically there is no basis for the argument. Special prosecutors, which are different from the "independent counsel" that came about after Nixon; the laws around "independent counsel" expired a while ago.
"Special counsel", and all of the other similarly named, have been around since Marbury. By happenstance, some have been X-members of Congress, Cabinet members, etc... but far from all.
There is a reason why none of the other Justices brought this up, it is absurdist.
Running a VPN service would not be wiretapping, but that is not what they were doing, and understand they had multiple avenues that they explored.
If you want to focus on just the VPN bit though; running a VPN would not break Amazon's secure communication. For Facebook/Meta to accomplish what they did they had to place fake endpoints in-between Amazon and its customers where they could pretend to be the party Amazon thought it was communicating with.
The VPN app installed a root CA on the device and did the snooping locally. It collected statistics about how people used competitors' services and sent that info back to Facebook.
How would Meta/Facebook accomplished this without reading Amazon's communication with its customers?
You have at least two parties in any conversation, I don't see where Youtube or Amazon consented, nevertheless, the recording was being done by Meta/Facebook, which was a third-party to the communication.
There are both Federal and State laws against the sort of wire-tapping that Facebook/Meta performed.
Again, the users installed this app on their own devices. You don't need permission from Youtube to install that kind of thing on your phone. Many, many companies install software like this on company-owned computers and phones so they can tap all internet communications on the internal network and watch for malware or data leaks. It's very common.
What I find really surprising is that Amazon has not sought criminal prosecution of Meta.
Even if in all cases a user selected to allow Facebook/Meta to see what they were communicating, which from reading all of the attached documents I don't believe was the case, I don't see how Amazon gave consent.
If some individual had done what Facebook/Meta did, I can't see a situation where Amazon wouldn't have asked for criminal prosecution.
Mastercard and Visa? It would be surprising to see how they would just shrug this off; maybe this hasn't hit their radar yet.
reply