The premise seems to suggest that the target companies’ security measures remain locked in at current levels. So while the attacker models scheme and plan and infiltrate, they do not notice or they do nothing. I don’t think that would be realistic.

I also don’t think the targeted companies don’t already feed all their data into some models. There will be beaches and poorly configured LLMs - the prize won’t be as juicy, the impact of the grand conspiracy won’t be as big.

I think the sky will not fall here.

They are a bit vague on this but I suspect all of these attack vectors start with LEOs having physical access to the unlocked phone. They then set up a trusted desktop without the phone owners knowing.

Which is clever, to be fair. Whether or not that’s legal is already a court case. The law is so frightfully grey.

The other ones I mentioned.

China’s biggest denomination is CNY 100 or about USD 15. India pulled its largest denomination bill from circulation maybe 5 years ago. The US stopped doing anything above USD 100 a while ago. Bigger denominations are a counterfeit and bribery risk.

Nobody cares about the Swiss Franc in cash outside of Switzerland. There are 10 million or thereabouts Swiss people. All the other currencies are used in much larger populations, three-figure millions at the lower end.

but would an EU-style freedom of movement remove that by allowing citizens of both Canada and US cross freely…?

Captain Obvious says yes.

It should be noted that not all that glitters is gold. At various times, Schengen member countries have reinstated border checks. Not at every border crossing but randomly checking people. Often unfortunately in accordance with the Family Guy police stop meme Pantone skin color chart. Germany is doing it at great cost as an internal political maneuver. Italy is doing it to people coming from Spain post the run on Ceuta. At the height of the Syrian refugee crisis every EU country along the way did it. Free movement is the first victim of anti-immigration politics everywhere. There is an argument to be made that this lofty ideal inked on paper in the 90s was too lofty for its own good in a realpolitik kind of way.

Given the current US administration and the crap they’re pulling on their friendly neighbours to the north there is no way this will happen. This century, if I had to put a time frame on it. This is what happens when the toddlers run diplomacy. Earning respect takes ages, losing it takes no time at all.

Which is it?

I may be white, sensitive, and full of bullshit. But I’m not American!

Sensitive? WTF do you mean sensitive? I’m not sensitive. Thank you for rage baiting with us today.

Asked and answered.

Sole custody? Not a big chance unless the other parent becomes criminal, sick to the point where they can no longer take care of the child, or worse.

Japan is embarking on a journey of allowing split custody. That concept is new though because we love a law with tradition that goes back to the Heian era. My layman guess would be they will somehow exclude foreign passport holders without PR, just on principle.

Forgive me for being this blunt: your friend is effed. They didn’t get their kid a passport. They are at the mercy of the Japanese courts. And even if they had the passport and could ‘go on vacation’ to the US, there is a very good chance the US courts would eventually send the kid back. There is international law at play to prevent child abductions, chief among it the Hague convention, to which the US and finally also Japan are signatories. Your friend’s best chance is a stable life in Japan, a good lawyer, and hopefully no marks on the record that diminishes their chances. Naiveté isn’t a defense. If the friend didn’t know that if the marriage went south this could be the outcome that’s regrettable but also the toughest of luck.

Also, we only get half the story on hearsay. The other parent’s story might paint a very different picture.

Personally, I look to the user side for lack of intelligence.

There are few feces filled salvoes flung at Melon Usk that I would object to. This is not one of them. The question I have though is this: do we need a new Twitter? It had its time in the sun but most people look back at it through rose tinted glasses. Before the takeover by the son of South African emerald mine owners, Twitter was in deep trouble. It had cultural relevance but was a financial flop. It benefited from being the first service of its kind with sufficient reach. I don’t think Twitter would have survived without the Nazi saluting shithead either. Its decline would have been more graceful by comparison. It would have done it without the bullshit tsunami emanating from the top, it wouldn’t have had the money to digitally undress people or other adventures in so-called AI, but I believe it would have faded anyway. People have split up from the one consensus platform to many different ones and making people switch is hard. So coming back now with a new Twitter is like announcing we will electrocute another Topsy next week. That turned heads more than a century ago but we have moved on.

And why is slop so sloppy slop slop? Consider this question asked and answered by yourself.

But now they want a court to treat that click as though an 8-year-old knowingly negotiated away her right to have these issues heard. It’s insulting.

In the court of public opinion, sharpen your pitchforks, light your torches, and move on Roblox HQ. This is objectively a silly argument.

Made in a court of law. Where lawyers play by different established rules. Where they are often compelled by those rules to pursue every possible avenue to get the best result for their client. Where they may be held accountable when mishandling their case. Where company execs push their own moral compass out of the way not because they believe this argument but out of a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. It’s a clusterfuck of obligations.

My gut feeling is they probably know this argument won’t hold up in court. But it may just knock whatever punishment awaits them down a peg or two.

I’m sure many people can relate. I’m not sure how helpful this is. You sound like you’re not from an area currently in a state of war or suffering from famine. So you’re probably somewhere where you could try to talk a therapist.

We also share half of our DNA with bananas. Therefore, we are also siblings of bananas.

It’s not from the machine because I clean that as well. And then all clothes should get the smell and they don’t. It’s a riddle inside an enigma wrapped in confused consumers.

The problem with the question is us, the consumers. When is the last time you sat down to read the instructions in great detail? A cursory look at the recommended temperature maybe and off we go. Meanwhile a labcoat has produced the greatest formula to clean everything at room temperature. If only we used this much water and these many spin cycles. But no one read the back of the container.

Where I am at, people tend to not do a hot cycle or if they need it they go to a launderette. The liquid works okay on clothes in a cold cycle. But bed sheets and towels start smelling if they don’t get at least a 40C/100F cycle every once in a while. And I do that one on powder because it was the only one that wasn’t designed to be for cold wash only. So to summarize this extremely boring anecdote: it depends where you are, what your machine is like, and probably on local water quality as well. Or: we’ll never find a good answer here that satisfies the demands of the scientific method.

Technically, “the Holy Spirit” isn’t a proper noun. That’s because it contains an adjective also. Personally, I wouldn’t capitalize any of those terms. The head of the Catholic church only really when talking about it as a title in front of the assumed name, Pope Leo. Somebody’s style guide may have them capitalize all nouns with religious notoriety. That’s a style choice then rather than grammatical necessity.

Also, grammar is the attempt at formulating rules about how people talk. Meaning the talking came first and then somebody tried to codify it. That means there is virtually no grammar rule that doesn’t come with at least one exception. Learning when to use an article or not, when it should be the indefinite or the definite one, is killing students who come from languages that don’t use articles at all. And in some cases also those who speak other article-infested languages. That’s because it doesn’t make any sense and you had to grow up being corrected by other speakers to get this mostly right. It is convention more than clean cut rules.

Call me cynical but I do think an outlet called oil price dot com may not be entirely impartial when they report on this. That is not to say what they wrote here is wrong; I wouldn’t know. It just has a touch of pot and kettle about it.

Since the power networks are linked and European countries import and export electricity, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that next to renewables power from gas stepped in to fill the nuclear gap. And the price for natural gas is often linked to a certain other commodity price.