They mean that penalties and restitutions for wrongful prosecutions and wrongful convictions should not come from taxpayer money but private insurance. Right now, police departments feel zero pain from judgements against them so they have no reason to structurally correct their behaviour.
If the punishment fails to correct the behaviour, it is insufficient punishment or the wrong punishment. In this case, I'd say that individual punishments are the wrong tool to correct systemic behaviour. It should be career-ending for brass and prosecutors to be effective.
Are you referring to the same UK that only a week ago gave Palantir access to the entire data lake of the FCA, the financial regulator and crime watchdog?
How is it interpreted? Something that you load into memory and then set the processor's Instruction Pointer at is not interpreted at all. And in case /init is a shell script, it's not the kernel doing the interpreting -- the interpreter would be /bin/sh, which would still be loaded into memory and executed by the processor. Claiming that machine code is "interpreted" because it still needs to be finalized by a loader is not a clever gotcha -- it's ignorant erasure of relevant distinctions.
I don't get how you can compare Sinner's UTR against Sabalenka's when they're based to two disparate group scores? Doesn't there need to be at least a modicum of cross-pollination to make a meaningful comparison?
There is some cross pollination. Women can play vs men, just usually don't. I'm fairly certain singles UTR is universal across players, it only distinguishes between doubles and singles UTR.
UTR can also include unranked games if one of the players submits a score and the other approves it.
why must I use a low-security PIN in place of your pre-existing password?
FAFAIK, all characters that are allowed in a user password are also allowed in device PIN codes. Knowing Microsoft, I'm sure there's domain policies to alter/restrict this. And the idea behind it is sound: that PIN is tied only to a single device, meaning that even if someone watches you enter your device passcode (or uses a keylogger), they can't go to a different machine or online portal and re-use the captured credentials there.
Those are some strong words and nothing to back them up. Please, feel free to explain to us in your own words what threat model this device PIN is defending against and how it fails at that.
When setting up the PIN you pick for it to be alphaneumaric (There is a option for it) and it acts just like a password field with a silly name.
The reason why it is tied to device isn't to protect against over the shoulder watchers, it is that the resulting key that is stored in the system is unique from system to system so you can't lift the key from one machine and use it on another. Maybe not as useful for a PIN but does make it harder to use a stored key to replace a biometric key so a compromised key doesn't leave every system you've ever logged into vulnerable to a key-auth attack.
Wait, what? This case's central argument was about propagating and promoting child sexual abuse material, but the maximum penalty was set to only $5000 per violation? Why?
> The jury found that Meta was responsible for violating New Mexico's Unfair Practices Act because it misled the public about the safety of its platforms for young users
“The jury found that Meta was responsible for violating New Mexico's Unfair Practices Act because it misled the public about the safety of its platforms for young users.”
So the penalty is for misleading around CSAM. Not CSAM per se. (My understanding is the latter are still being adjudicated.)
I think it's also true that government officials around the world are less inclined to just go along with it, since Israel has lost control of public perception. So the tactics have to become more brazen and forceful to achieve the same results, increasing the risk of exposure and/or blowback.
reply