He has good taste, that’s a quiet tank.

Yeah, abjectly hate conversation view.

Looks like Peeve could use a knit cat cap…

Web search used to be about scraping the web to find and present other people’s work as just that… their work. Now the handful of websites claim ownership of the contributions of everyone, and at this point it’s just corporations arguing about who owns your stuff. Pirates will not win out in this argument, except maybe in the very short term.

I’ve read that human skin particles make up a significant portion of household dust.

… Are you a robot?

Holy fuck, that’s horrible

Was there not a whole team? It’s not a solo procedure.

Huh, the quote with context is actually much worse than the headline. I’m impressed.

Not sure why you’re being down voted. It’s a legit question even if you support the law. Enforcement seems very difficult and other laws and courts make even easier enforcement difficult.

I still think it’s a very positive direction from the FTC.

Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth

Logitech mice always get better with age, they give you extra clicks for free with each touch of the button!

Doesn’t sound like a design flaw, it’s the whole point, only reason you need a cancellation portal.

So to fix that all they need to do is endanger some trees? Seems easy enough to fix.

Who actually pulled the trigger? Who paid to go trophy hunting? Who paid so much to go trophy hunting that it counter balances all of the funds that would come from tourism and preservation organizations?

Also, half the article that discusses support for trophy hunting still doesn’t explain why this specific occurrence was allowed, even if all of the general justification are both valid and reasonable.

How about a world without microplastic?

I generally agree. However the fossil fuel alternatives have an equally labyrinthine network of subsidies. Half the national defense budget could arguably be allocated to that bucket.

What books were they going to give away?

We don’t know

What books are banned?

We don’t know

… Sounds super legit

Not that it would’ve been ok anyway, but you can hardly even call it a smokescreen.

So, this isn’t really relevant to your overall point, but generally it’s appreciated SCOTUS, POTUS, etc.

That’s skipping over the fact that recovering deleted data, even if it isn’t overwritten, is not an “oops”. It it takes extra effort, and if that data isn’t being protected it would be overwritten incidentally as drives are used.

There is a big difference in a database between “flagging” data and actually removing the association of the data to the database.

The article is being disingenuous about data not being deleted unless it’s overwritten with 1’s and 0’s. Technically that’s true, but:

Most data being deleted is equivalent to a piece of paper being placed in a trashcan, and it’s “permanently” deleted when that trash gets hauled away to a landfill (or supposedly recycling but that’s another topic). Technically it’s still forensically accessible, but it isn’t accessible by any normal means. That piece of paper may not have been incinerated, but for the majority of practical purposes, it’s gone.

Apple never hauled the trash away, even though they claimed they did. There should be no way for them to accidentally restore those photos, just like there’s no way for you to accidentally get a piece of paper back in your trash bin after it’s been sent to a landfill.

Focusing on the 1s and 0s skips past the fact they failed to complete the first, obvious, essential step. If they didn’t delete it the simple way, they would never have gotten to the 1s and 0s step. This isn’t just a simple oversight, and those pictures were still very easily accessible, just not to the people who should have been in control of them.