https://daringfireball.net/linked/2025/12/10/state-departmen...

"Calibri does convey a sense of casualness — and more so, modernity — that is not appropriate for the U.S. State Department. And I do not buy the argument that Calibri is somehow more accessible for those with low vision or reading disabilities. People with actual accessibility needs should be catered to, but they need more than a sans serif typeface, and their needs should not primarily motivate the choice for the default typeface."

Official departmental paperwork shouldn't look clownish.

If an acquirer wants to acquire shares in a public company (or any company actually) it makes the offer to the shareholders and they are the ones who decide to accept or not. The proposed transaction is between the acquirer (who wants to buy the shares) and the current owner of those shares (the shareholder). The Board manages the company but is not itself an entity (it's a group of people) and cannot therefore own shares (tho individual directors can and usually do).

The Board can make a recommendation to its shareholders about whether it thinks the offer is fair or not (based on their usually greater knowledge of the company and its worth), but it is the shareholder who decides whether to accept.

The underlying suggestion that a Board or CEO is essentially forced to do something bad for the company because of some underlying obligation to make shareholders money etc etc is false. Directors owe fiduciary duties, but they are proscriptive, not prescriptive in this way. One of the most commonly repeated falsehoods is that the Board is under some duty to maximise profits etc - that is proved wrong not least by the existence of non-profits...

The closest analogy is someone owns and investment property being managed by a real estate agent. A buyer approaches and says "I will pay you $x for the land". The agent can say "Hey I rent this out all the time, it can earn $z over t years, so I think it's worth $x + y, or $x - y" but it's up to the owner to say yes or no.

The above ignores eg competition law issues (laws that prevent an acquirer buying companies where there is likely to be a substantial lessening of competition), potential conflicts for share-owning directors, and the myriad statutory considerations etc but is the basic underlying position.

Getting access to this data is the holy grail for attackers - it is preposterous not to have a local-only or "saved on iCloud only" model. Clearly the only reason they removed this ability was the juicy, juicy subscription revenue, which requires them to hold the data.

They may have avoided a breach this time but have they previously been breached? Will they be breached in future? The possibility of each is non-zero.

Needless to say, I'm still using the older version and am planning how to transition once it stops working after an OS update.

The wiki article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation-restoration_of_th...) has a lot of it, but IIRC after they installed stainless steel, at some point they passed electricity through it, which had the effect of making it susceptible to corrosion, and then had to do something else to restore its resistance.

I wish I could find it now, as it was a fascinating read, but I can't see anything easily online.

In cases where there is intentional wrongdoing, existing laws already make complicit people liable both to civil action by people harmed, plus criminal or civil penalty provisions by ASIC (or the ACCC, depending on the industry and conduct). As a plaintiff, you typically join them to increase your potential pool of recoverable assets for your clients.

The same is true if there are breaches of the Australian Consumer Law, and the person has a particular level of knowledge that is below intention.

In cases of pure negligence, like this, if the negligence rises to a criminal standard, then criminal laws and penalties already apply. How and when this works has been a topic for over 50 years, since Tesco v Nattrass in the UK.

In other words, there are already very significant legal mechanisms in place, and by and large they work - and not all of them involve having executives personally liable. In any event, many already do, and this has been worked out carefully over a long period.

The usual way around this is via a class action, and there are already at least 2 being prepared that I know of. They will run and probably settle at some point. The main thing to be policed is to avoid the funders and solicitors taking too much of the proceeds, although that process is already in hand due to recent abuses.

Allow me to introduce the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 to you. [https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00956]

Section 4 has the effect that (leaving aside taxation laws), "[t]he provisions of the laws of a State as in force at a time (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) apply, or shall be deemed to have applied, in accordance with their tenor, at that time in and in relation to each place in that State that is or was a Commonwealth place at that time" (s 4(1)) - unless the State law already had that application, in which case the State law applied untouched (s 4(3)).

There is also express provision in s 5 concerning the operation of some Commonwealth crimes provisions.

But as a general matter, if smoking is illegal just outside the Commonwealth place, it will be illegal inside it.

eta: oops, I left this open for a while before posting, and just saw others have answered.

This is wrong. A corporation is just an artificial person. Like a person, it can seek a profit or not - eg charitable not-for-profits. There is no legal obligation either way.

"In Search of Sugihara" by Hillel Levine

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1119369.In_Search_of_Sug...

It seems to be readily available on kindle, but harder to find in print.

What you are missing is that you are assuming that the CFAA is the only means by which Van Buren should be punished. So you are assuming that either the CFAA covers this abuse, or he gets off completely free.

The CFAA isn't the only means to deal with his conduct. Although it doesn't apply, he is still liable to be punished under whatever regime he was given access to it.

In simplified form:

He was granted access to the system pursuant to his employment - ie he was able to log into it, whereas the average citizen can't. Whatever conditions are applicable to that grant are the ones to apply when he abuses that access (eg if the policy says "you can only access this for these purposes, or you will be fired" then if he accesses it for a different purpose, they can fire him).

That is quite separate from the CFAA.

The CFAA is a parallel source of obligations, and is part of the criminal law.

Just because Van Buren breached the terms on which his employer let him access the database doesn't necessarily mean he committed a crime as well.

What SCOTUS did was say that the criminal law provision essentially deals with the "technical" side of access:

* if you get into a computer that you have no access to (ie hacking into it), you breach the relevant section.

* if you are authorised by the operator to have the technical means to access to certain info in the computer (eg permissions), and you do something to access other material, you breach the section (eg escalation of privileges)

* if you have the technical means to access the computer (eg log/password) and you access material that is permitted under those means (ie the user account), but you are not authorised to have that means of access (ie stolen login credentials), you also breach the section.

The problem with the interoperation that SCOTUS rejected was that under EULAs, the provider could essentially say "you can use our systems to log in and view information. But if we decide we don't like you, or you haven't paid your bill, or if you decide you are going to vote for politician X in the upcoming election, then if you actually view any information while you are logged in, you breach the act and commit a crime"

The rejected interpretation said: "authorised does not just mean you have been provided with the technical means to access the information, but also any additional conditions put on your use of the technical means by the person who granted it, which may change at any time" (eg change of policy, what is going through the user's mind)

So the answer to your observation:

> I feel pretty strongly that what van Buren did is a massive abuse of authority and it warrants punishment.

is: it is exactly that. But it is punishment to be delivered via the process granting him the access to the information (ie whatever sanctions apply to violation of departmental policy). What he did was a breach of that policy, leaving him open to whatever sanctions are provided in it. But it is not also a crime under the CFAA.

  One of the big open questions is "are APIs copyrightable?" 

IMHO they got the Huffman table wrong, although arguably it was the result compelled by an overprotective approach.

Main reasoning:

  All in all, though, the desktop database industry has entirely collapsed since the early '00s. Desktop databases are typically viewed today as legacy artifacts, a sign of poor engineering and extensive technical debt. Far from democratizing, they are seen as constraining.

  What changed?

  I posit that the decline of desktop databases reflects a larger shift in the software industry: broadly speaking, an increase in profit motive, and a decrease in ambition.

  ...

  The software industry, I contend, has fallen from grace. It is hard to place when this change occurred, because it happened slowly and by degrees, but it seems to me like sometime during the late '90s to early '00s the software industry fundamentally gave up. Interest in solving problems was abandoned and replaced by a drive to engage users, a vague term that is nearly always interpreted in a way that raises fundamental ethical concerns. Computing is no longer a lofty field engaged in the salvation of mankind; it is a field of mechanical labor engaged in the conversion of people into money.

  In short, capitalism ruins computing once again.

* there is a non-trivial degree of tech knowledge needed to run and maintain them

* they are tied to the desktop, and not ubiquitously accessible

In short, people want to focus on the task (running their household; keep track of collections; running their small business; logging inventory; etc) and not the technical means of accomplishing that task

This is all about a collapse in demand, and a shift to an alternative that better suits the needs and desires of the end-users.

It has nothing to do with "capitalism" ruining things. (Side note - the author has not defined capitalism, and I don't think it actually means what he/she thinks it does.)

Edited to add: there are still many desktop database programs offered to users. If there were still a huge demand for them, they would outcompete the supposedly evil industry products that so upset the author.

Which is another way of saying "I believe Apple should either not operate in certain countries, or should try to operate in those countries in defiance of the laws of those countries."

The beef is primarily with the government. Companies are stuck in the middle -- either operate in compliance with local laws (even if they believe those laws are wrong) or don't operate there at all (since the third option of operating in contravention of local laws doesn't usually last long, and has painful consequences).

It would be interesting to know what the people who live in the countries think -- would they prefer not to have Apple products (or any other company's products) unavailable to them?

I've also had mine since early November last year, and also use them many hours a day, mostly at my desk. Never dropped. Either left on desk in case or carried in a trouser pocket with nothing else except my iPhone.

They were absolutely perfect until about ~6 weeks ago, when the right bud started to make an awful tinny noise (which I thought was imperfect cancellation, and a software bug of some kind) when I coughed, which it had never done before.

Yesterday, I started getting the rattling sound when walking, right earbud only. Goes away for a couple of steps if you take it out and reseat it, then comes straight back. Rattles in time with footstep.

Since it's an impulse thing for me (force of cough, force of bouncing when walking), I'm guessing defective connection (defective solder joint?) that is misbehaving when stressed?

However, I can't resist pointing out something ironic in a post about a video about grammar:

> The number 27 is referenced at least seven different ways.

"Referenced" should be "referred to", or "The video makes reference to the number 27...".

Although I accept that this misuse of the word is so widespread that it will probably end up being accepted on the "if enough people make the mistake long enough and often enough, it ceases to be a mistake" theory of language...