Are you familiar with FISC? I'd say go familiarize yourself with its case law, but you can't, because it's secret. And it authorizes methods much more powerful and invasive than a simple search warrant. Precedent exists, but nobody outside the national security state actually knows what it is.
You're maybe proposing another line where no spying is legal at all and we should just submit ourselves to the whims of terrorists or other lunatics? Surely there is actually a line where there are tradeoffs between security and privacy and its probably not 0% security and 100% privacy.
Perhaps you think all FISA rulings should be public and any sufficiently savvy malicious actors can just read them to know exactly how to avoid suspicion?
Everything the FISA process overseen by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review can authorize (and much more invasive means, contrary to your claim) can be authorized by regular search warrant.
The FISC process is used when the purpose is foreign intelligence rather than domestic law enforcement, and it exists because prior to that there was no limit on the covered activity when it was done for that purpose.
> Precedent exists, but nobody outside the national security state actually knows what it is.
Extremely rapidly, and it is wholly unprecedented in the geological record[0]. At this point, expressing curiosity about this rather than putting forth the trivial effort to find the amply available high-quality evidence is difficult to read as anything other than bad faith.
I noticed it when I was in Brooklyn two months ago. In DC, where speed and stop cameras are the only form of traffic enforcement and where the bus cameras are also being piloted, the proportion of cars with fake (temp Maryland tags printed on a library printer) or obscured plates is probably approaching 10% of vehicles on the road, and 90% of routine reckless drivers. If NYPD demonstrates a studied indifference to public safety, DC MPD is doing a post-doc in the field.
> Also, while we’re on the subject, can we talk for a second about how completely unnecessary a 900-mile EV is? Why not use a battery a third of the size to give us something much more affordable with a still-useful 300-mile range?
I guess the headline they went with is catchier, but this is the real lede. Don't give me a 900-mile battery, give me a 250-mile battery that weighs and costs 1/4 as much. 900 miles is 12 hours of non-stop driving at highway speeds. I can't even conceive why anybody would want a personal car that does that. (Long-haul buses with bathrooms onboard and the ability to seamlessly switch drivers would be great, though trains would be greater still.)
If that 250 mile battery maintained it's range for years and did so even in harsh conditions like cold weather and at normal highway speeds then it might be enough, but in reality all those things will wipe a good chunk of battery capacity away and those 250 mile range EVs will easily become 100 mile range in the real world.
I can fit 8' lumber or hundreds of pounds of soil in my Prius. That covers over 95% of my needs as a DIY homeowner. When I need 10' lumber, I rent a truck for $60 and a half hour of my time, which is more than paid for by the cheaper operating costs and insurance. When you throw in the purchase price, owning a second vehicle just to move large/heavy objects doesn't make sense unless you do it multiple times a week for a few years.
I also put a 50 gallon home water heater in my Prius. Agree that a second vehicle, like a truck, isn't worth it as it will easily cost several hundred $ extra per month for limited uses.
Sorry, I did not intend to imply that was your case. I was more responding to a the reply (whether sarcastic or not) wishing that a car existed that combined both commuter and "move stuff" characteristics. I know an alarming number of people who do actually have a second "move stuff" vehicle, and my partner took months to convince to sell our second vehicle which was being (dis)used exclusively for "move stuff" after we relocated to a city with good bike and transit options.
The problem is "oh, we're still supporting it, we just released an update yesterday that fixed an issue with kerning when selecting certain fonts on the built-in LCD. What do you mean 12 critical CVEs unpatched for years?" So now you have to define "supported," which will be lobbied to death by every vendor in the world.
Well, if the company is willing to live with the risks/liability of a still-supported product containing unfixed vulnerabilities then they're clearly not long for this world. Eventually someone will sue--no matter what the support agreement/TOS states--and they will win. Even if they don't it'll still be a pointless large expense for the business.
I added that word because at least with non-bespoke backups, you have probably thousands of users each day testing restoration out of necessity, and word might get around if the method failed to restore. But nevertheless, one should still test even then.
I always see this advice but...how do you even do that without having an entire additional set of disks to restore too?
You can't restore to production obviously, as aside from the downtime if the test fails you've just destroyed your good copy and proved the other copy is also bad.
About the best I can think of is restoring a small part of the set as a sample, which isn't really testing the whole thing.
