I don't think that's exclusive to white men at all. We have seen a number of concerning anti-Semitic statements from Black NBA players and one particular Arab podcaster. The general rule seems to be something like "Rich / famous people are allowed to only mildly reject -isms that are common in the community in which they grew up."
Google is notorious for pulling this and numerous people have come forward pointing it out and the CEO of IBM was on air back in 2021 (?) pointing out that any white men who have a problem with not being promoted can essentially pound sand.
This is/was an incredibly common behavior in tech, and anyone who says otherwise is being willfully argumentative or is incredibly isolated.
Hardware key storage is a low level security primitive. Both Android and iOS have mandated it for far longer. It's a low level security primitive that enables a lot of scenarios, not just DRM.
For example - it's not possible to protect SSH keys from malware that achieves root without hardware storage. Only hardware storage can offer the "Unplug It" guarantee - that unplugging a compromised machine ends the compromise.
And if you want to play sound, you buy a sound card. Computers integrate components that approximately everybody needs. Hardware storage for keys is just the latest example
Touch is one way of demonstrating proof of presence. Biometric is another. Pin is a third. Yubikeys typically support touch or pin. Windows Hello (which is TPM based) supports bio or pin.
Developing new technologies has risks. In the absence of anything really bad actually happening, I think we can solve the problem by adding new requirements to Waymo's operating license (and all self driving cars) rather than kneecapping the technology.
It's tedious to see these same sarcastic comments on every self driving car story. Yes. Buses and trains exist.
When you link the cars together, they usually switch to a hub that's a 10-15 minute walk from your destination instead of your destination and the compartments are occasionally shared with unstable and violent people, which while possibly "efficient" in some metrics, are downsides that many people would rather avoid. Personal compartments are a real differentiating advantage.
A quaintly American complaint. A 10 minute walk being an issue is very a learned helplessness my fellow Americans suffer from.
But unfortunately the 10-15 min walk is only possible in a couple cities. most Americans day to day experience of public transit is spaced out buses that don’t work well for single family sprawl and strip malls parking lots where walking is treated as undesirable. Car oriented rather than people oriented urban planning (or lack thereof) is the original cause.
violent unstable people aren't inherent to cities.. they're inherent to places that refuse to spend any money on social work/housing/and enjoy punishing people
I would rather pick to not be subjected to them than to be subjected to them. NYC spends over 40k/homeless person and I still have to be subjected to them, even though I paid enough taxes to wash my hands of the issue morally
All public transit is at least an order of magnitude safer than driving a car. 10-15 minutes of walking is called being an inactive human. I promise it won't hurt you (unless you get hit by a car).
Doesn't satisfy the ADA. Department of Education would sue such a college for failing to accommodate disabled students. An accomodation that is available to everyone isn't an accomodation.
No, of course not, that'd be ridiculous. Where did you see that in my post?
To explain in more detail. The ADA says that an accommodation is when an entity (business, employer, school) makes a change of behavior. Installing a wheelchair ramp in an older inaccessible building is an accomodation. Granting extra time is an accomodation. Simply having accessible buildings or excessive time is not an accomodation.
But why the lawyers treat it differently. Business feel comfortable, when they have a ramp, arguing that no accommodation is necessary for the wheelchair bound. The standards of accessible physical design are clear. Schools do not feel comfortable saying that no accommodation is necessary for mental health issues, ever. Their lawyers advise them that it's much better to give some sort of accomodation and argue in court about sufficient accomodations vs giving no accomodation at all.
> if you presume they are honest, they tend to be honest. The students loved it, I loved it. If anyone cheated, the students would turn him in. Nobody ever bragged about cheating, 'cuz they would have been ostracized.
I think if you look at the 2012 Harvard cheating scandal, it's clear that this isn't true. There, the professor presumed honest students, hundreds cheated, and no student reported.
It doesn't always work, that's for sure. I suspect one of the things the admissions committee did was try to filter out the cheaters. Explaining how the honor system worked was part of the freshman orientation camp (held on Catalina Island).
One reason it did work is the students liked being trusted, and they did not like anyone that would threaten the system, and would turn them in.
BTW, that was 50 years ago. I have no information on how the honor system is fairing today.
reply