The irony is that the civilian drone market exploded (no pun intended) because of cheap innovation, and now the same qualities (small, cheap, adaptable) make them nearly impossible to regulate without sweeping bans.
I suspect that an increasing number of countries and cities will move toward permanent drone bans, as battlefield technology inevitably filters down to organized crime—and eventually even petty crime.
Governments probably wouldn't care about hobbyists, but they would care about all the commercial enterprises that already adopted drones. Delivery drones and light shows are the most well-known, but they're also used in weather monitoring and agriculture.
Maybe this is the time for drone transponder signals? Require every drone handler to be registered, then have the drone broadcast some signal with the registration ID + some cryptographic hash?
Then shoot down everything that has no transponder or a blacklisted ID.
Yes, this will encourage ID theft (or just theft of the entire drone), but even then, a stolen ID could at least be a starting point for an investigation.
There's really no point to doing that. The drones which actually get used for attacks in places like Ukraine are not fancy off-the-shelf drones. They're very simple DIY systems made from basic electronic components. So, impossible to regulate.
Siteimprove Analytics appears to be confident enough about their cookieless tracking technology (compared to cookie based tracking) to claim:
In general, Visitor Hash is expected to be more persistent, resulting in a drop in the number of unique visitors. Since cookies are known to have an increasingly short lifetime, leading to overestimated data about unique visitors, we consider the Visitor Hash technology to be more accurate at capturing information about unique and returning visitors
When Cookieless tracking is enabled, it replaces the traditional use of cookies with a "Visitor Hash" made of non-personal information only. This information includes hashed IP and HTTP header values including browser type, browser version, browser language, and the user agent string. The Visitor Hash only consists of server-side attributes passed along by the website server.
Note: Siteimprove analytics does not collect client-side attributes. The Visitor Hash is used for the same functionality as the cookie and nothing else. For some websites, like intranets, there is an increased likelihood that the visitors could end up getting the same Visitor Hash as they might all be accessing the site from the same IP and on the same device setups. In those cases all page views would appear to be coming from one, or a few, visits. That's why we recommend excluding those domains from using cookieless tracking. See the "How to exclude domains from having cookieless tracking enabled" section below for more information.
For carbon footprint also, I believe. For bottled water at least, manufacturing the bottle has by far the most environmental impact, even more so than the shipping/transportation part of the process (which you'd think would be severe, as water is heavy).
That's an interesting tidbit. Every time there is a suggestion we switch to reusable glass bottles instead of plastic, someone raises the issue of the extra weight of the bottle which will lead to greater carbon emissions during transport.
But if, as you say the largest emission comes from manufacturing the plastic bottle, not the transport of the bottle AND the content; then it seems possible to lower the carbon footprint by switching to glass (on top of the other advantages like reducing landfill use/litterring/environmental pollution).
Maybe both making a glass and plastic bottle take more energy to make then in transport? And or you have to transport the empties back to clean and refill?
Cleaning will use almost as much water and much more energy than filling it. In industrial settings you must be REALLY sure that the bottle is clean, so a lot of hot water.
Imagine being so spineless, so utterly desperate for power, that you’re willing to contort your public persona just to appease a man who made lying a brand. Zuckerberg didn’t just sell out—he gift-wrapped his integrity and hand-delivered it to Cheetolini.
In my own experience, I have noticed that Apple's software 'breaks' more on older hardware, be that Mac's, iPhones or iPads. For all the credit apple gets for supporting older devices, those devices are definitely not treated as first class citizens. For example, the touch keyboard on my (work) iPhone 12 Pro works decidedly worse than on my (private) iPhone 16 Pro. The error rate is much worse, and I believe it's due to the amount of useless features that get added with each new installment of iOS.
Whether that's intentional or not (I believe it is), Apple should focus more on delivering a stable experience, on both new and old devices.
I echo the sentiment a lot of people have already expressed.
That is, using Apple products is like being a junkie. You need to use their products because there is no real alternative, but you feel kind of dirty because of their practices.To me, that sounds like it should be a huge red flag for Apple execs.
Adding my comment as reply as well as it is relevant:
---
I've been holding over and running 10.5 on my iMac 2019, but then in the beginning of the year had to upgrade to Sequoia (due to software dependencies).
Of course this is just a correlation, not necessary a causation, but within a month the iMac's internal SSD was corrupted to the point that it was unrecoverable, and my 40GB RAM corrupted.
So, yeah, at the very least not sure how much testing went into Sequoia for non Mac Silicon macs.
Quite disappointing considering how long a normal Mac's lifetime used to be, which also justified its high initial hardware price.
