If I can plausibly say I'm making something super dangerous, the government is likely to want to be the first government to have it. If the check clears before they figure out if I'm BSing them or not, it's a win.

Given a last-minute announcement of a new vehicle in a crisis situation, that vehicle can't be too different from what already exists.

That salute was too much even for the AfD. That it's not obvious to every American is an indicator of just how thoroughly boiled are we frogs.

Covert bigots with self-awareness are more worrying than the overt ones lacking it because they try hard to pretend to simulate normal civility while knowing their symbols and ideals are still widely repugnant that they avoid any association with them while accumulating legitimacy and political power.

People lacking empathy and believing they are better than others indeed represent the tao of fascism, and cannot be bargained with or appeased into cooperative, pro-social participation. Neville Chamberlain made that mistake that plunged the world into a more costlier war.

Might I also suggest that expressing self-fulfilling prophecy, learned helpless, demotivating doubt and doom is both untrue and doesn't help advance individual or collective power, hope, or change. IOW, the "we're cooked" pattern behavior people fail to see how their selfish compulsion for unfiltered self-expression harms the cause of change and harms others by demotivating them.

Personal computers were used in office environments long before the technologies to make them administer-able as if they were a mainframe. Before blindly jumping in and reproducing those technologies, better to ask why they emerged in the first place.

Most workplaces don't have strict bans on personal mobile devices, and some of the ones that do, don't have the kind of physical perimeter defense that can detect people getting lazy about whether or not they carry their personal mobile devices into the workplace. That makes perimeter defense into security theater anyway. We need a rethink about what we are guarding against and how we're doing it.

> Most workplaces don't have strict bans on personal mobile devices

If you're talking about select work apps on your mobile device, sure, but that's limited attack surface.

If you're talking about employers who let unmanaged mobile devices hop on their internal network... I've never seen that. Maybe at a hypothetically perfect zero-trust shop?

I've seen a lot of un-seriousness about security. One that's easy to spot is old unpatched IP phones that aren't segregated on the network. I've given demos at companies that are serious, where a device I accidentally left behind caused an urgent search of every room I had been in. Security didn't have to be told which rooms those were.

You likely know better than I, but I've always had a weird intuition that enterprise IT security is bifurcated into "Leaders who understand compliance+details" and "Leaders who confuse compliance for details" with very different results.

And I get it's extra work, but I've seen some weird "But if you'd just built this a bit differently, you would have gotten all these free security bonuses to your posture" gaps.

Imho, a huge part of the problem is invisibility. I'm firmly of the belief the US government should be running scans on entities in regulated industries (defense, healthcare, utility, telecom) with regulated redress of any findings.

Trusting private industry isn't working.

Future archaeologists are going to chronicle humankind's stupidity by the lead layer, the atom bomb testing fallout layer, the PFAS layer, etc. All of these were made possible by a misplaced sense of scale. Yes we can poison the whole planet. That little blue dot.

Geologically speaking it's just one really cool layer.

It's also got my pogs in it!

There are so many ads for nostrums, cults, get rich quick scams, and other junk that violate TOS, that Meta has a legitimacy problem with their TOS.

They shorten the yellow light interval to gain more revenue. It's an irresistible corruption when working on a revenue share.

You're taking something that has happened at least once and extrapolating it to every situation; this isn't accurate.

Show me one big city PD that isn't corrupt enough that this is just a minor corruption snack to them.

This is a bizarre comment. What level of absence of evidence would you accept to prove "not corrupt enough?" The "corruption snack" language strongly suggests you aren't really interested in changing your mind even if such evidence could be provided.

If you know of one I would gladly hold it up as a shining example and a template for others to follow. And yet...

It's also bizarre because light timings are set by DOTs, not police departments...

Do you think your local DOT is corrupt? I think mine is inept, but not corrupt.

welcome to hn

Legacy local news is highly dependent on the police for content and access. No surprise.

More likely: the local news reporter doesn't know the difference, or didn't think there was a difference.

"Garrett Langley" sounds like what they renamed the villain in Le Mis for an American audience.

They will never lift much. If they were strong enough to lift heavy objects they would be strong enough to kill you accidentally. There's no technology fix for that.