Members are allowed only to forward tickets to other members, or sell them back to United … the use of multiple devices to access club accounts includes being able to act for a group of friends or for elderly family members who struggle to use technology

So this is a result of forcing the use of an account for every visitor? It’s also madness you cannot forward or resell tickets outside the “terms and conditions” dictated by United. Which sounds a lot more like a license to a ticket, than actual ownership over a ticket.

Am I the only one that finds it ridiculous, non-E2E encrypted cloud storage isn’t protected from mass-scanning (against opaque cryptographic hashes)? Just because one technically could, and “nothing in the law prevents” a provider from doing so, or a legal basis is explicitly being provided (in case of the EU’s Chat Control), doesn’t mean one should. You’re still preemptively scanning private content, and it should be irrelevant whether or not it’s encrypted.

I’ve frequently criticized Apple in the past, but I can’t do anything other than praising them for dodging this privacy-nightmare; unlike services provided by the likes of Google or Meta, that actively encourage the use of unencrypted options by default, while happily “volunteering” in case of the EU’s Chat Control.

Spotlight, uh, moonlight, uh, eyesore get your fucking aim right 🎶

‘okay, this is David, remember this person.’

Well, that wouldn’t be creepy for someone to say. And the “the cocktail party problem”, really? It’s generally much more awkward if a person you hardly remember, greets you like you’re their best friend. But I guess you should also start wearing these glasses, right? So we can all be pretentious douchebags, instead of just humbly asking if we’ve met before. And I can’t wait for creeps to give slideshow presentations to these glasses, so they have an arsenal of women to hit on: pretending like they’ve met these women before…

… drones often alter natural behavior simply because people or animals notice them. The disruption can cause wildlife to scatter and people to behave differently.

Ah yes, humans in their natural habitat: blissfully unaware to the fact that their every move is being monitored, mocking the “tin foil hatter” trying to convince them otherwise.

The statistics appear to originate from from this pseudo study. All of the questions related to supposed “protection of children”, are framed within this context, without concretely considering the possible downsides; which strongly biases participants’ views. I also like how it typically reduces ages 18-54 to a single bracket (while statistics on page 18, demonstrating a trend of younger respondents, responding with reduced strength), and especially how it doesn’t consider minors to be Canadians (18- being asked absolutely nothing, at all…).