From their viewpoint, you have to think about what happens if, after they became aware of this vulnerability, there was then a crash because they weren't prompt and aggressive enough in addressing it. That's the kind of thing that ruins your entire company forever.
It raises questions that James Comer keeps raising to attack Fauci, but which never seem to get anywhere close to being proven. It's now been four years. The various libels against Fauci remain unsupported.
It should be noted that massive tree-planting efforts do not magically create "forest". They create tree plantations. Forest is a complex ecosystem that takes some time.
It's reasonable to say this is wrong. But really, this seems like a tiny subset of users. Who bought a Mac Pro in 2023 after Apple Silicon had been out for 3 years already? Almost nobody, because it wasn't a real performance improvement by that time. For those extremely niche folks for which it was somehow still beneficial, they definitely won't want to still be using such a machine in 2028. They will have moved on to something like an M5 Ultra Mac Studio or whatever form the Mac Pro takes next.
Not sure what is up with this, but I just flew from Italy to the US with my AirPods Pro 3 and did not experience any issues. So it's apparently not present 100% of the time.
Also: battery life is VASTLY improved on the APP 3. Rated time is 8 hrs and I'm getting closer to 9.
There's no reasonable expectation of pervasive video/audio capture, permanent recording, and complete AI analysis of all actions in public by all citizens forever, either. But that's the direction in which we're rapidly heading.
(Vouched for this comment, which was somehow already dead at 2 minutes old.)
Someone will always say "there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public", for whatever reason. So someone always has to respond to that, for the benefit of anyone who doesn't know that not everyone agrees with that dismissive assertion.
>Someone will always say "there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public", for whatever reason.
It isn't "for whatever reason", it is part of the first amendment. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it hasn't been the law for a very long time.
Everyone has heard the phrase. It doesn't necessarily mean what the person saying it thinks it means.
For example, you can't legally photograph people in certain ways in public in some US jurisdictions. (Because "no expectation of privacy" perverts
There are also restrictions on secret audio recording without consent under circumstances that some people would try to claim are public.
For another example, there are restrictions on how you use that "no expectation of privacy", US-wide (e.g., commercial use of photographs, or cyberbullying).
And that's before we get into common decency, or arguable conflicting laws or principles.
But of course, every single time there is an opportunity for some new person to dismiss a good point with "no reasonable expectation of privacy!" such a new person materialize. And so someone else has to spend their time responding.
No, you can't film people in public restrooms, but that is an exception. There are limits to freedom of speech. You also can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire.
But yes, recording in public is generally very much allowed, and for good reason. I'm happy that we can film our govenment and dissemenate those recordings when they do something wrong. And that is the same first amendment right that gives government the ability to record too. And there are very few restrictions on recording, so yes, there is no REASONABLE expectation of privacy in public - the situations you outlined are all unreasonable. There are limits to free speech, but that doesn't mean recording in public isn't generally allowed.
You can hate it all you want, but it's the first amendment that makes it legal to record in public. I'm honestly glad we have the right to record in public, else the government would be able to hide some nefarious shit that the public has been able to record and dissemenate. If we couldn't record in public, then that would be extremely dystopian. Maybe using AI on recorded data is the real problem you're having, and I agree there should be laws against that - it is a separate issue than recording in public, but it's unlikely to ever be regulated with the current administration.
Nobody has provided any evidence that I've seen that the murderer was motivated by a right-wing anything, and frankly as the least logical conclusion it needs sources. I read that the person who turned him in (or an acquaintance) said that he was the only leftist in a family of hard right people. [Apologies for the lack of source; I read it as news was breaking and don't have the link]
It's a nonsensical argument that the attack was random. It's farfetched that it was for some unrelated-to-politics reason given that these men as far as we know had no connection to each other, and it's nonsensical to believe that someone beloved by most people in the right wing would be targeted by a fellow right-winger.
If someone like AOC or Bernie Sanders was viciously attacked at an event, you can't tell me that you would accept an unsourced assertion that "it was actually a marxist that harmed them."
> it's nonsensical to believe that someone beloved by most people in the right wing would be targeted by a fellow right-winger
Look up groypers and Nick Fuentes - he's a right winger who was NOT a fan of Charlie Kirk and amassed a following about it. There is _some_ very mild evidence to believe that it's possible (I personally don't think that's the case FWIW)
Or Laura Loomer. She's deleted a bunch of her Tweets that here highly critical of Kirk over the last few months, but the one mentioned in this article seems to still be there [1]. In case that one gets deleted, here is its full text [2].
While searching for more information on this I found an interesting link to something Grok wrote, answering the question of whether the shooter followed Loomer. It was quite interesting. No idea if any of it is true but given Musk's well known efforts to get Grok to favor the right it is sure amusing it would say this:
> Yes, based on reports and social media discussions following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, the shooter, identified as 22-year-old Tyler Robinson from a "good Christian gun-loving MAGA family," followed Laura Loomer on X (formerly Twitter). Robinson was a vocal supporter of Donald Trump and appeared to have been influenced by far-right online rhetoric, including potential inspiration from Loomer's recent criticisms of Kirk as a "traitor" and "charlatan" who betrayed Trump. This detail emerged as investigators reviewed Robinson's social media activity after his capture on September 12, 2025. Loomer, a prominent far-right influencer, had posted multiple times in July 2025 attacking Kirk for hosting guests critical of Trump and engaging in "dialog with Democrats," which some speculate may have radicalized followers like Robinson. While the exact motive remains under investigation, the follow relationship aligns with broader patterns of intra-conservative online feuds escalating into real-world violence.
[2] > I don’t ever want to hear @charliekirk11 claim he is pro-Trump ever again. After this weekend, I’d say he has revealed himself as political opportunist and I have had a front row seat to witness the mental gymnastics these last 10 years.
> Lately, Charlie has decided to behave like a charlatan, claiming to be pro-Trump one day while he stabs Trump in the back the next.
> TPUSA was only able to thrive thanks to the generosity of President Trump.
> On the one year anniversary of the assassination attempt on Trump’s life, Charlie hosted @ComicDaveSmith at @TPUSA ’s SAS conference where Dave Smith was able to speak to a bunch of conservative youth at an organization that claims to be Pro-Trump.
> 3 weeks ago, Dave Smith called for President Trump to be IMPEACHED and REMOVED from office over his decision to blow up Iran’s nuclear facilities.
> Charlie played both sides of the Iran issue on his show as we all saw, because he wants to play to both sides of the aisle.
> The honorable thing to do is to have a position and actually defend it to the death instead of flip flopping.
> Smith said all of MAGA “should turn on Trump” and abandon him. He said this 3 weeks ago.
> See the clip below.
> TPUSA is definitely not pro-Trump. If they were, they certainly aren’t anymore.
> Out of all of the incredible pro-Trump voices out there who support the President, Charlie decided to host Dave Smith?
> It really is shameful. And I am honestly just disgusted by the nonstop flip flopping on the right.
That linked article says nothing of the sort, which is why it almost immediately switches to talking about stuff from half a century ago. The evidence so for doesn’t show them taking a strong political stance in general–note their Discord history mentioning neither Trump not Biden except as a passing news reference once each–and their friends have expressed disbelief about them being that political. Not every shooting has a philosophy beyond not liking the victim.
>We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it
Mr. Kimmel does not assert Mr. Robinson was "MAGA". Simply that the, "MAGA gang" is trying to distance themselves from Mr. Robinson.
Where in the quote does he assert Mr. Robinson is MAGA? Everyone is attempting to distance themselves from him. The "MAGA gang" are simply doing on the most popular main stream "news" outlet in the United States.
If you _decide_ to read it that way, you can. But you'd have to be looking for something to be offended about.
Given Mr. Robinson's upbringing being very similar to many MAGA, it would make sense for them to attempt to distance themselves from him, no?
The same way non-maga would distance themselves by asserting how unusual his access to firearms and firearms training is compared to the general public?
Maybe English is not your first language? Critical reading skills are important.
I have 60+ years of English as a first language, a library of several floor to ceiling bookcases and no, it definitely does not say that the killer is MAGA.
It's a classic deliberate line skate but it clearly states what the "MAGA Gang" is asserted to have done without actually claiming the killer to be be part of that "Gang".
It wouldn't pass muster in an English libel Court and it's a milquetoast sentence in the US first amendment free speech world.
Further it is a bald matter of demonstrable fact that multiple voices that could be characterised as "MAGA" were indeed making numerous assertions about the killer and their motives before any facts other than the shooting itself were known.
This makes the Kimmel statement little more than a dull piece of observational social commentary.
My guess is these progressives are so used to eating their own and purity spiraling, that they just assume it must come as naturally to conservatives as it does to them. How they reconcile that with conservatives having clearly been able to set aside their differences to win enough elections to lock up the Supreme Court for probably of the rest of these same progressives' natural lifetimes, I don't know.
> If someone like AOC or Bernie Sanders was viciously attacked at an event, you can't tell me that you would accept an unsourced assertion that "it was actually a marxist that harmed them."
So, first, both of those two (AOC in particular) have been the subject of extreme criticism from the tankie/accelerationist bits of the leftophere. It's 100% not out of the realm of possibility to imagine them being the target of an individual loon motivated by the right combinations of freakouts.
But also, it's not "unsourced" to say that Robinson comes from a conservative background, that he was a church-going-enough Mormon to be recognizable to his pastor, that he's informed by and involved in right-leaning edgelord/groyperist meme culture (that halloween costume was a pretty smoky gun), that he executed the murder with a family weapon to which he had easy access and apparently solid familiarity, etc...
I mean, his background looks extremely Trumpy. He's also apparently a closeted gay man with a hatred of Kirk in particular. And that doesn't make a lot of sense in total. But then that's the way it is with murderers. It's not a philosophy for the consistently rational.
And the inability to reason from evidence is a big part of the disconnect here.
That article doesn't substantiate your statement. The single quote in the charging document it's talking about is that he had become "more pro-gay and trans-rights-oriented", which is obviously not the same thing. Otherwise Thiel and Jenner would be "left wing" in your world view.
Real people's views are complicated, especially those of an insane murderer.
So if the killer (who we also found out had a transitioning girlfriend/boyfriend/whatever) killed Kirk because he thought Kirk wasn't "accepting" enough of trans people, it still seems pretty nuts to attribute the killing to "MAGA" doesn't it? Especially given the "fascist" bullet casing as well.
Although in the end, the most chilling thing isn't the killer, it's the thousands of progressives who have been openly celebrating the murder[1], just based on the fact that he disagreed with their beliefs.
[1] if you think I'm exaggerating, just watch the supercut of them in Sh0eonhead's latest video. It goes on for a long time.
