I had this fantasy that big blockbuster movies would have certain generative elements. The essential story parts would be the same but background elements or details could be generative or programmatically targeted to specific audiences. Imagine watching Avatar 3 and each time the forest looks different or different animals are seen. That’s a bad example but you get the point.

Blank stares

I'm just asking because I want to know more about gtk and why it might be an issue for some people.

"in a 2014 interview. "A Tesla car next year will probably be 90 percent capable of autopilot. Like, so 90 percent of your miles can be on auto. For sure highway travel." "

[deleted]

>Why are you obsessing over Elon Musk?

The lady protests too much, methinks.

[removed]

>Why else would Facebook be paying a republican firm to spread misinformation about tiktok?

Because it's a direct competitor? Neither have to be a propaganda arm to have a business case for hurting the other. Not that I disagree with you

I thought E3 was cancelled?

Good for them! It was outrageous what E3 was charging to rent the spaces when they can just have their own event for far cheaper.

At this point let's just attach a dynamo to Louis Rossmann for infinite energy.

[deleted]

Keeping EVs inflated means the majority of car buyers will still opt for ICE for cost savings.

> If they gave a shit about environment, they would make this lock removable

It is removable.

Why do so many people on reddit spend their time hating on Apple for shit they don't even do? It's fucking weird man.

Any modern MDM solution will allow you to remove the activation lock before wiping the device.

Wait, but stick with me here, if they all try to hire them back there will be competition for them and salaries will remain high, no?

Not sure what you're saying. Salaries are determined by supply and demand in the market for your labor. If a bunch of companies later decide to hire people back, salaries will go back up.

There is nothing new about this sort of thing. Anytime any hospital/government agency/ or company dealing with confidential information needs to decommission a device it is by procedure destroyed at a recycling plant as part of it’s lifespan in order to protect the data from being recovered and stolen.

Any time those devices are recirculated it is a breach of contract by the recycling company and puts the data at risk. This might sound like a waste, and it kind of is, but this is standard security practice and is the only way to be sure data is completely protected on an old device.

The only thing Apple is doing here is ensuring that these recycling companies can’t say they destroyed something and instead turn around and sell it, which is super common.

Source: I used to work at a grungy computer repair shop and we would be the ones buying these devices from the recycling companies, currently a Sr Sec Analyst so I’ve seen both sides of the coin.

Every ford dealer who signed up for their EV push (2000) will have public fast chargers by end of year

Can't even max out all the packages and extras to break 73k.

every new thing you learn about Google is an L

my 2010 macbook pro still humming.

Mechanical Teslurk

I was just watching some slow TV today, as you do, and realized instead of getting drones and processing videos, in the future filmmakers could just generate these. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxwJrzEdw1U

Only way to be sure you don't leak confidential data is to destroy the hardware, companies like this have been destroying hard drives for a long time, they hardly ever resell them, with new laptops there is no separate hard drive + there is other sensitive data outside of that.

They could organise to sell the computers without the motherboards to repair stores possibly, that way people with broken screens may be able to swap in a motherboard etc, but i doubt the recycler wants to do that work.

If the recycling company sold these locked computers instead of destroying them to a bad actor who sites on them hoping someone finds a way around this lock they would sued into non existance.

> From the large enterprise IT departments I've seen, cleaning up old laptops that aren't being re-used by the enterprise is a very, very low priority

That's a political choice. If there was a direct cost associated with scrapping electronics rather than reusing it, there would be an immediate cost-benefit analysis done.

For example, if there was a $100 deposit on all electronics sold in US stores that would be refunded when a refurbishing company refurbished the product, a company can immediately see a return on investment of company time. It will immediately be worth it to have an IT person spend the 5 minutes it would take to get the device ready for refurbishment. Hell, if the company is large enough, it would be worth it to have someone employed to do only that.

It would also incentivise private individuals to dispose of their devices responsibly, because who wouldn't want $100 just for handing in eWaste?

I hadn't thought of that, but it makes perfect sense. Thanks!

Seriously?

You could just read the article, but okay.

Some of the companies made the decision to withhold the activation lock, as they specifically and deliberately do not want the machine reused.

To answer your specific question, the article does not specify if that was the IT manager or the company as a whole. It’s a mystery that you’ll never get an answer to, and it’ll eat away at you until the day you die.