Guess they’re headed back to the BSA acronym:
Bigot Scouts of America

AI Slop code base. Did Microsoft go open source?

It will be a Paramount Discovery of new ways to make movies and TV suck.

I really hope someone is checking the seals on those solid boosters. They are based on the design from the Shuttle. And there’s a bit of history with a lunch being delayed and those rockets sitting out in the cold.

It’s voice phishing. It’s basically a scammer cold-calling a victim and talking them into giving up useful information or doing things the user really shouldn’t do, like entering credentials into a scammer owned web page or adding a new multi-factor authenticator.

Correction:
Cheeto Mussolini’s unconstitutional attempt to unilaterally usurp powers not delegated to the Executive Branch creates trade chaos.

This shit is entirely the fault of Trump and his cronies. The Supreme Court is just doing it’s job, finally.

This one is a mixed bag. KYC regulations are very useful in detecting and prosecuting money laundering and crimes like human trafficking. But ya, if this data needs to be kept, the regulations around secure storage need to be just as tight. This sort of thing should be required to be kept to cybersecurity standards like CMMC Level 3, audited by outside auditors and violations treated as company and executive disqualifying events (you ran a company so poorly you failed to secure data, you’re not allowed to run such a company for the next 10 years). The sort of negligence of leaving a database exposed to the web should already result in business crippling fines (think GDPR style fines listed in percentages of global annual revenue). A database which is exposed to the web and has default credentials or no access control at all should result in c-level exec seeing the inside of a jail cell. There is zero excuse for that happening in a company tasked with protecting data. And I refuse to believe it’s the result of whatever scape-goat techs they try to pin this on. This sort of failure always comes from the top. It’s caused by executives who want everything done fast and cheap and don’t care about it being done right.

It’s certainly one of those hard trade-offs to make. One of the methods for reducing crime is increasing the perceived likelihood of getting caught. Cameras can do that, if there is regular follow-though by government authorities to investigate, arrest and prosecute crimes. Though, there is probably more value in reducing poverty and corruption, which is known to reduce crime. And which has the added benefit of not creating a surveillance network when corruption does creep into government. Of course, that is expensive and might just help the poors, and that is antithetical to authoritarians of every stripe.

Cheeto Mussolini showing off his insecurities.

The best way to protect a dataset from falling into the “wrong hands” (for however the “wrong hands” is defined for that dataset) is to not keep that dataset in the first place. While I get that tracking the movement of citizens can make solving some crimes easier, the risks to privacy and of authoritarian abuse are far too great to accept.

I have two:

1. Waves glowing with bioluminescence during a red tide. We didn’t know it would be going on and were just camping by the beach. Walking on it at night, we all saw the waves glowing and weren’t sure it was real. As we got closer, our footsteps in the area where the waves were rolling in and out were glowing as well. Just surreal.
2. A house blowing up. Guy opened a natural gas valve in the house and touched it off. Insulation shot way up in the air and the house itself bowed outwards in basically every direction, stayed standing though. At least until it burned down.

Oh ya, I remember her greatest hit

Not every news article is going to be about some ground breaking research. That researchers are putting these sorts of fad diets to the test is important and knowing the outcome of that is useful. Journalism is about informing people, not entertaining them. If you can’t handle being informed without the sensationalism, you may need to seek professional help.

Unless the romance is central to the game, that sort of focus and depth just isn’t going to be put into it. There is also the issue that the writers in video games have far less control over the main character than they do in other mediums. In a book, you don’t have to worry about your main character deciding to to fuck off for a week collecting all the boxes in a village and stacking them on the town well, just because it’s funny. That main character stays on task and on plot for the writer. There are games where that high level of control is possible, visual novels exist, but that starts to push into the question, “why not just make a book/movie instead?”

Similarly, I think it’s going to be hard for any video game romance not to come off as transactional, due to the nature of a game being a computer program. Imagine trying to tell Romeo and Juliet as a video game. At some point, Romeo and Juliet will need to interact. Romeo arrives at Juliet’s window and professes his love. How does the player interact with the game for that scene? Is it just a cutscene? Or a cutscene with quick time events (press X to woo). Trying to replicate a Jane Austin style story would be even worse. As books about people sitting about in drawing rooms drinking tea and being catty to one another, replicating that in a video game is all going to boil down to dialog trees. Perhaps the first time through it could feel fresh and interesting, but on a second playthrough it’s going to quickly be obvious that the whole thing is really just “pick the right options for a chance at sexy-time”. Maybe we could get a Jane Austin Rouge-like, in that each time you load it up the characters’ personalities change and you really do have to pay attention to verbal and social queues to get anywhere. But even that is still really just “pick the right options for a chance at sexy-time”.

Ultimately, I think video games are always going to be fairly transactional in nature. They are computer programs and are ultimately deterministic. All the interactions you have in a video game need to be planned out, scripted and maybe even voice acted. It’s what makes all the interactions in Baldur’s Gate 3 so amazing. Everything those characters do was planned for, written and recorded. Every comment, every facial expression was planned, written and coded. There is no spontaneity, because there can’t be (maybe with AI, but that’s a different can of worms). That so many little things actually did get covered is amazing. But, the trigger conditions for playing that bit of animation and voice acting will be hard coded. Whether or not a character likes the main character must be a set of numbers stored in memory, because that’s how computers work. Yes, it could be far more complex than just an easily identifiable number. And perhaps hiding those numbers from the player would make it feel less obvious, but they aren’t going to go away.

And all the work which goes into planning, writing and coding those interactions is time spent during development. Going back to Baldur’s Gate 3, wouldn’t it be awesome if some of the NPCs started pairing off with each other? If the main characters isn’t getting busy with Shadowheart, maybe she discoverers an interest in big men who can turn into bears so you come back to camp sometime to find her and Halsin sitting very close together talking softly. This could even have the whole random element where different characters have different crushes/interests each time you play through. That would be neat to see, but it’s going to require a lot of extra development. Unless that’s a feature which starts selling video games, it’s not going to happen. Perhaps this sort of thing will show up in indie games, I wouldn’t expect it in major titles anytime soon.

Pepperidge Farm remembers:

That’s really my thinking on it. Though, I would do the same thing the US Government does for ID cards now: smartcards.
So, we already have the Read ID act, which started the standardization of ID in the US, let’s take it one step further. The US Government stands up a PKI infrastructure, which then issues subordinate issuer certificates to the States. The States are then in charge of issuing each person a smartcard with a personal digital certificate. These cards would be tied to drivers licenses or state ID cards, much as Real IDs are today. There would need to be a Federal standard on what types of card technologies would need to be used. And we’d probably want both contact chip and NFC communications.

When you want to access Government services or specific areas which actually need that level of identity confirmation, you would go through a similar process to any digital certificate login. You tap/dip the card, enter a pin and the systems exchange an encrypted nonce to verify the private key. I’d also want to see some regulation around when you can be asked to use it. With GDPR style fines (e.g. 5% of global revenue, per incident) behind those regulations.

To throw a bone at the “think of the children” crowd, to get them on-board politically, it would also be interesting to investigate the possibility using the system for age verification, without providing identification to anyone. E.g. using something akin to a zero-knowledge proof, or just a bit which can be set when signing a nonce which shows that the ID is valid for whatever age is required for something. But maybe that’s just my not-quite-awake brain coughing up silly ideas.

The whole idea that we have some permanent “secret” number which is used to uniquely identify us is just really, really dumb in this day and age. There are better solutions, but they are hard, cost money and will probably face an insane level of political resistance. So, we continue to lurch on with the dead corpse of a bad idea that is social security numbers. But hey, at least it’s cheap, right?

Is there anything we could try to get alternatives to YouTube?

Yes, you can pay for it.

If you want “free” then you’re going to be stuck with the same ads, tracking and enshitification. If you don’t want any of that, you are going to have to crack open your wallet and pay for the privilege. As an example (not an EU one), there’s Nebula which is ad free, owned and operated by creators, free of AI slop and mostly free of the usual dross the youtube algorithm pushes. At the same time, it’s scope is pretty limited (predominantly science and edu-tainment type content). And there is little guarantee that they will survive and/or grow. I personally have a subscription and keep hoping they succeed, but I also don’t expect them to reach anything like the scope of YouTube.

And that sort of thing brings with it another problem: a lack of democratization. One of the things YouTube does is allow nearly anyone to put something up. While the algorithm is hardly kind to new or niche creators, it’s still entirely possible for some random person to start posting cat videos as dramas in three acts, and maybe that takes off. With the siloed services, that’s never going to happen. Maybe they won’t insist on some sort of editorial input, but they are also going to be far more selective in what they platform. So, there is a trade-off to be had.

There is also the BBC model, with a publicly funded service. You’re still paying for it, but it’s not directly controlled by a corporation with it’s shareholders to serve. Though, there might still be the question of opening up the platform for more “niche” creators.

I remember working in environments where management had decreed that we would not install updates ever. . .

That’s…definitely a decision that puts a lot of trust in Microsoft’s security. Lol

It was a very different time. Security was still something that happened mostly at the network perimeter, and even then not much. Routers without firewalls were very common and things like SQLSlammer were much more possible.