The last part of the article was what got my attention:

> "Hyundai is also providing free steering wheel locks, as available, to select law enforcement agencies across the country for distribution to local residents who own or lease affected models," Gabriel wrote. "Owners may also bring their vehicles to a local Hyundai dealer for the purchase and installation of a customized security kit."

> The kits are available for purchase and installation at Hyundai dealerships and Compustar authorized installers across the country. They start at $170 and there are also charges for installation.

Maybe I'm just being biased, but Hyundai should be footing the bill for extra security now that all of the thieves are specifically targeting their cars. On another subreddit, I read about someone who discovered their car wasn't stolen at the end because the thieves couldn't figure out how to drive a stick shift. But that didn't stop them from destroying the steering column and ignition. $6K worth of damages and the car was sitting in the repair shop for about two months. Their concern was all of that could happen again once the car is repaired, and this time the insurance might drop him or jack up his rates.

As two people commented in another subreddit:

> "It’s like Apple on hard mode. Create a problem, then sell the solution. Except nowhere near the level of brand loyalty"

> "Apple’s stuff at least is enjoyable when it works. This is some Spirit Airlines shit."

This is absolutely not true.

Pretty sure they lowered their prices after the year ended, having no impact on there numbers.

A worrying trend, and one I fear is a sign of things to come.

Oh sure they can. Is it based on individual two factor authentication though, so a laptop for someone who was dismissed can’t be unlocked? I would assume that’s the issue for the M1 and newer laptops with fingerprint scanners. Can’t invite fired employees back to unlock, or remote employees, not worth the cost. They should resell them, but most won’t and in fact will pay to get rid of them securely, and to avoid corruption of an in-house team handling merchandise, basically.

Did they choose that, or did their companies make the decision? It's easy to imagine an MBA telling an IT worker not to waste time on something that's not going to generate obvious, immediate value for the company even if it's the right thing to do.

This is definitely Apple's fault. They made a lock that turns a functional device into e-waste and cannot be removed.

If they gave a shit about environment, they would make this lock removable - with removal wiping all encryption keys, essentially destroying all the data on the device. But that's Apple - they only care about three things, and those things are: control, PR and profits.

Philips is returning back to its core business that is only hardware or medical devices. They have had a tough time selling software/informatics solutions.

The CEO will work, just for another company willing to pay a more competitive rate

You can block it?

People expecting these sanctions to be airtight or to be a product of mere "free market" problems should probably remember the famous American B-2 spirit bomber (EDIT: SR-71 reconnaissance aircraft) was made with titanium that was over 90% sourced from the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Short of a military embargo, these sorts of sanctions are only partially effective, and can only reasonably prevent mass redistribution in composite products, or modestly increase costs and hassle.

It is and it isn't, since it wasn't the new hires that got fired exclusively.

The correction is happening in the market. During the Trump era companies converted tax money into buy-backs, and did other things that inflated the price with no real growth to back it. But everyone did it, and the interest rate was low, so investors felt ballsy and went with it. In 2020 it got even worse, and a recession hit everything, except the market, because everyone was doing it, and the interest was low so investors felt ballsy and went with it.

Then in 2021 the economy lurched again, and things started moving. The interest rates were low and the investors felt ballsy, so the market stayed waaaay overinflated. But investors refused to believe it was their fault. The market reacted by, rather than lowering the market, making everything more expensive until the market was effectively cheaper. But it couldn't be the investors fault, so people assumed that supply was limited due to issues with the distribution. But as distribution and supply improved, the inflation kept, but it couldn't be the investors. But something had to be done, and so interest rates went up. When interests rates went up, investors weren't able to leverage their investment against loans as effectively, so they started feeling less ballsy, their coke waning, and so they started selling, which lead to a snowball effect. The investors couldn't have done anything wrong, so it couldn't be a market only correction "the recession is coming" said Chicken Investor and everyone said the same. The prices kept falling, but the rest of the economy was doing just fine.

Now investors don't use economic models, that is they are not based on theory and science to be proven to actually describe the way things work. Instead they use financial models, which play it a bit more loose and are more of general guides on how the economy works. So we have a model where companies decide how much of a company's valuation is real and how much speculative. That is if you buy a $100 stock, it may be that if the company folded right there and then you'd get, at most, $80, and the other $20 were bets on the future (that didn't pay off). They use a model that goes backwards, they look at the revenue and profits the company makes, they look at the capital they have, the number of employees, etc. and from it create a base valuation. When the stock price is higher than valuation, that means there's speculation, how much investors are willing to do depends on how ballsy they feel. When the stock price is at-price it's considered "a safe bet" basically a good place to put your money that will have some returns and is good as a backup. When the stock is worth less than the minimum valuation, people assume that the company is imploding, losing value and worth getting pennies on the dollar, and therefore will be worth even less in the future. When the economy is doing well this model is very good, it basically is about company size vs how people feel about betting on it, a clash between reality and observation. But it doesn't capture all cases. Like using a barometer to find out how high above sea-level a boat is and realizing that if it lowers that means the boat is sinking, unless it's just the tide going down. Same here, the model doesn't capture cases where there's a large market correction, and it really doesn't work well in these cases. But that would be admitting that the investors got greedy, and the investors did not do a mistake, it must be the employees that got it wrong!

And so companies do layoffs. There will be those that try to make excuses, to say this is a solution to a real problem, which is absurd because there isn't. They will say that the companies over-hired and are losing money for it. But the profits and information doesn't show that at all. The companies did over-hire, and therefore should set a period of internal-optimization with low-hiring rates, and a focus on performance and project analysis. So by the time the market stabilizes and the correction is over, the companies would find themselves roughly where they should be. The need for mass-layoffs is only to keep investors happy with their arcane (at least to them, many don't seem to understand the logic behind them) models. But of course, this would mean that it's the investors who are being too greedy, and they can't be wrong. The thing is this won't prevent the hit to investors for the next quarters. It doesn't mean that investors won't get their money, we were just 4 months ahead of schedule. This is like getting your May paycheck deposited on February by accident and then withdrawn. It just isn't their money yet but it will get to them. But the investors can't be wrong or impatient in their greed. People will argue "lowering the amount of employees will result in lower prices", except, of course, we already had very low levels of unemployment way before COVID, and inflation wasn't hitting hard. Sure there was overhiring in 2020, but this itself was a symptom of over-valued companies, no the source of the problem. And even then inflation was driven a lot by companies demand, based on their high prices. As long as companies are not reducing their demand on products and services, we won't see this go down. The other thing is that employee expenses are pretty small compared to other day-to-day sources of costs, yet we are not seeing a rush to cut on those down (because those actually harm the company's profit in the short-term). That is, once you look at the bottom-lines, the same problem of limited profit growth (while revenue has been booming) is still there. The reality is simple: you hold the boat, keep it slow, and rake in the huge increases in profit from just internal optimization.

Companies are not really making an effort to reduce the impact on the long-term, and this solution won't quite make it work. Markets reach equilibrium really well, but they can do this in all sorts of fashion, and will destroy everything in their path. But hey, the investors do not get greedy, and this isn't their mistake. Somehow it's all for us right? Either way, at least I can say this (being one of the many people laid off) this too shall pass. It's just the flow of things.

Then what’s the show?

I think the idea is that there will be, but not currently because they're still testing it.

Although it is hard to understand what they're doing because they're not very clear themselves. The idea seems to be that chatGPT will remain free, possibly with some improvements in the future, and then a paid API will be released for people to train their own version of the AI on their own datasets. That paid API is what you're after, but it doesn't exist yet.

What would really be useful is if it could take in files as prompts. For example I can feed it an Excel spreadsheet and then it could write blurb outlining more or less what the spreadsheet says. Writing up reports on spreadsheet is a massively boring task, no one likes it and if it could just be automated that would be fantastic. I'm sure chatGPT is clever enough to do it but it's inability to take in files means it can't. What is not clear is if the API would allow me/someone else to build in that functionality.

This doesn’t make Apple products any less “sustainable”. Simply makes them more secure, but that security can easily be disabled by the original owner when reselling.

That’s like saying if someone sells a car without the key, the car is less sustainable because the new owner can’t use it without the key.

Maybe it never should have been sold without the key in the first place.

Exactly, if I sent it to be destroyed I would want just that.

Was entry level when the dot com crash happened. For 6 months I couldn't find a job. Everyone was saying that in the future every single software job was going to be in India. Why have it anywhere else? Everyone drew lines parallel in it to the manufacturing industry and pointed out that everything is made in China now. I was convinced I was going to have to switch careers and that software in the US was dead. And then it wasn't, and then I ended up making more money than I ever thought I would make.

It turned out all those stories about every single tech job going to India were wrong. Now I'm hearing all the same people say all the same stuff again. I'm skeptical this time around.

i would like the goverment to make laws about what is and is not allowed by a social media company. so it applies to all companies fairly. would do a lot more good.

Looks like electrifry America has an issue with its fryer

But they are all terrible and don’t work half the time.

Alright, I'll give companies shit for things that are their fault but this one is not Apple's fault.

This is purely the fault of IT Departments that don't have proper policies and MDM in place for employees to prevent this from happening. It's also the fault of organizations that don't have proper offboarding procedures to remove these kinds of accounts from devices as well.

If companies are not stopping workers from entering their own personal iCloud details onto work devices, then all the devices ending up in landfills/being recycled are because of them, not Apple.

> “We’re turning brands into first-party data farmers, rather than letting them scavenge around looking for third-party data.”

Sweet, I, for one welcome our new insect overlords new opportunities for data breaches

Won't work for $3 million?

I guess "Nobody wants to work anymore." /s

The fed's mandate is to control inflation. If they don't get it sorted by election time, it's going to bite them in the ass. They are going to use every trick in the book to try and sort it out.

Raising rates is one that they have direct control over. And the Federal Reserve says that raising rates may lead to unemployment.

>The president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston said earlier Monday
that the Federal Reserve will have to keep increasing the interest rate
to get inflation down but that would also mean a rise in unemployment.
And as the Federal Reserve does plan to continue the interest rate
hikes, experts project that the national unemployment rate will rise
from 3.7 percent currently, to a median of 4.4 percent next year.

Directly or indirectly, the government is going to remove money supply from the economy by taking away jobs and making people accept low pay again out of desperation.

Stabbing you is better for your health.