It misses where apple brought back audio and magsafe

Audio is valid, but apple brought back magesafe.

EDIT my 3 year oldacbook pro has bothagsafe and 3.5mm audio.

Except devices, specifically quoting routers, Do make up bot nets

That’s the specfici malware used on unsecured IoT devices and routers.

I was able to find tons of scholarly articles Like this one

That specifically talk about how many of these devices get comprised.

This isn’t some theoretical attack vector. This is active now.

The risk of taking down large portions of the internet has the same risks as a vacuum? Interesting.

Your right not every device has parts availability. But again, why not? Because it it’ll cost more?

Your willing to risk tanking the digital economy for what has historically been huge sums of money, because we don’t hold vacuum cleaners to higher standards?

I’m being obtuse, but you keep pointing to “well we don’t fix that problem over there, so we shouldn’t do it over here”. It doesn’t sway me. We should absolutely fix repability of ALL ELECRONTICS AND CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

We do take cars that fail safety inspections off the road. You are correct, we don’t hold them to higher standards, but that’s not a reason why we also shouldn’t remove genuine hazards off the roads.

If a car is far more likely to kill someone, it shouldn’t be on public roads either. Just like devices that can’t be update don’t belong on public nets. The risk to the broader public is to big IMO.

Software 100% needs to be included in support.

Old devices that become vulnerable but still accessible on the internet, eventually become part of bot nets producing DDOS and other network attacks.

You think spare parts don’t cost money? Wearhouse space is expensive. Massive part stores have to be made. That’s all expense needed to take on by auto manufacturers. Why would software be different?

Either that or they keep all the tooling, which again is expensive. And people need to know how to use the tooling too.

This isn’t a “it’d be nice” kind of patch. This is exactly how we get massive bot nets for DDOS attacks. Devices become vulnerable, scans go out on the internet looking for devices they can exploit, and when they do, they gather bot nets.

It’s also not creating something new. It’s fixing your shit. They don’t have to create the entire software stack from scratch, just fix the exploit. If they can’t reasonably do that, then these devices need to be taken offline.

This is why a number of countries have laws saying spare parts must be made available for a number of years past being sold. Well beyond what the warranty is.

How is this significantly different?

Can you at least see how both statements are whataboutism?

Yes that should be more talked about. So that makes this article invalid?

Can you see how that doesn’t change the response you replying to?

Some people didn’t vote for him

Well other people didn’t vote

Are two unrelated statements.

Except this whole article doesn’t apply to android. Android AFAIK has 0 announced plans to do this. So why is it a concern?

When it comes to iPhones, it’s not a shouldn’t, it’s a can’t.

The way iOS limits background process means you can’t. I develop for iOS apps for a living.

There’s still you should never under any circumstances allow unsupported devices to be exposed to the internet or any way. Because that’s how we get bot nets causing DDOS attacks.

An iPhone is not going to be that. This isn’t phones in general doing this, just iPhones.

There are also far more efficient devices for that. More cost effective and more energy efficient.

I understand wanting to reuse old devices for something, but there’s a limit to what is power efficient as well.

Encrypted is also the word to make people feel safer.

Correct but you also dont want an encrypted password. You want a hashed password.

What exactly do you think schools are?

I guess I expect the national energy commission to still regulate the plant to ensure safety standards are the same between public and private.

deleted by creator

Chrome was started by google

Because that’s not how LLMs work.

When you form a sentence you start with an intent.

LLMs start with the meaning you gave it, and tries to express something similar to you.

Notice how intent, and meaning aren’t the same. Fact checking has nothing to do with what a word means. So how can it understand what is true?

All it did was take the meaning of looking for a number and strawberries and ran it’s best guess from that.