The account’s discovery raises questions on just how many bots are operating on X
I have yet to encounter an actual user of the platform X in the real world.
The account’s discovery raises questions on just how many bots are operating on X
I have yet to encounter an actual user of the platform X in the real world.
What then will they use to train it?
I think the key point is ownership. If the house is owned by an equity firm, even if it’s occupied it still counts as a house which could instead be owned by, well, homeowners.
As others have mentioned, a trusted 3rd party signs the correct key so your browser can check the key itself.
However, it should also be noted that your browser must have a list of trusted 3rd parties and their certificates used for signing in order to perform this check. It’s entirely possible to modify this list yourself. Some examples include:
So while it’s possible for trusted 3rd parties to issue valid certificates to bad actors, it’s also possible to add anyone (you, your employer, or some bad actors) to the trusted parties list.
I mean, yeah, exactly. Keep in mind scammers are targeting vulnerable people. Granted I don’t see how such a feature will work on my grandmother’s flip phone.
It might be a good feature for the elderly as long as it’s local and optionally enabled (especially if it can be enabled only for unknown callers).
Yes, I understand you would never really know if it’s not always enabled. But then again, you currently don’t know if anything similar isn’t already enabled.
For other users, again potentially useful if it’s opt in. However, many people (myself included) simply don’t answer the phone anymore unless it’s a caller we already know. I use Google’s call screening feature for any other caller not in my contact list already, and I would estimate about 1 in 20 or 5% of such calls I receive aren’t spam (marketing or fraud). Of those non-spam calls, the majority are appointment reminders I don’t need.
So would I turn this feature on? No, I don’t have a need. Could it be beneficial for the elderly? Yes, but probably not implemented in a way where it would actually be effective.
That may be, but I’m not sure that’s a problem for a communication platform. I remember one time when they moved the share screen button around and some less tech savvy users thought the feature was removed!
Teams has something like chat threads too. E.g. you can reply to a message in a channel and it groups all replies, and you can also focus that thread if you want. But I agree it isn’t hidden “off the main topic” quite like slack threads.
I can’t say I’ve run into those issues with the new teams. Worst I’ve experienced is the app freezing during a call, which has happened twice in the last year or so.
Unpopular opinion I guess, but I think Teams is actually pretty good at my workplace.
Buy it. The game is fun.
The argument for AM appears to be: the vast majority of adults will receive an emergency broadcast through their cellphone, but what happens if some event has already occurred which disabled large portions of the cellular network (which itself is an obvious target to create havoc)?
I’m fine with using AM as a redundant system for alerts.
Maybe make it more useful though for people in the car? I don’t need an AM button I’m never going to touch. Instead have it monitor whatever the emergency broadcast frequencies are automatically, and put something on screen when there is an alert. That would make it a useful “modern” feature as opposed to appearing as a legacy holdover.
Why make the penguins suffer?
Good. Please proceed as quickly as possible.
Exactly. The choice shouldn’t be between some of you are selectively fucked or you are all equally fucked. It should be are you properly compensating for the role or are you just fucking them over.
I don’t understand how these absurd arguments aren’t laughed out of court.
Who is John Sauer and why does anyone take this unfounded nonsense he’s saying seriously?
They’re assuming liability but that doesn’t mean it’s safe or more capable than other systems.
Yeah I don’t really understand either. Under those conditions any comparable level 2 system would operate without ever requiring the driver to take over.
Ah so it’s marketing BS then, got it.
How is this different from the capabilities of Tesla’s FSD, which is considered level 2? It seems like Mercedes just decided they’ll take on liability to classify an equivalent level 2 system as level 3.
Trump’s plan is to end support for Ukraine.