Will they surrender logs for a legal discovery request?

e.g. Johnny's accused of something white collar, did he ever make any prompts that suggest how early on he was aware of {X} and further indicate how he moved to frame it?

That's a requirement that varies by country.

Yes? What other answer could be there?

Have you read anything about the feature?

They’re asserting that all the audio is done on device, and the results of encrypted so they can’t access them even from the backups.

Unlike… EVERY… other tech company, it is in Apple’s interest to be privacy-focused.

Even if you just have to believe them, which you do pretty much, they’re the biggest name pushing for privacy in the world right now. They make more on selling devices than they make on ads and behaviors. It’s in their interest to not lie.

Read the actual privacy brief. Even though the audio transcription is done on device. For Siri recap, a condensed transcription (which mostly removes superfluous words, etc.) goes to their PCC servers. So even though their servers do not get raw audio, their servers do get transcriptions, which is nearly the same privacy-wise.

Of course, at that point it depends on how much you trust their PCC.

It's their interest to be privacy focused ... to the extend that they don't let other companies have free access to their users data.

But make no mistake, Apple itself is an ad company and that sets all the incentives that matter.

> a bit bigger/more rugged to go bush once in a while.

Depends whether you're taking the Birdsville track or the Bibbulmun track really.

The shorter one can be done a on a red postie bike, the longer one won't even need that :-)

Been thinking more along the lines of the Munda-biddy actually :)

But I haven’t got on my bike for a few years now because at the moment all my spare energy goes on managing our plot. There’s always something needs moving, sawing, building, repairing, digging… So I’ve gone from having a (pudgy) cyclist’s physique with very strong calves to more of a farmer’s build with bigger arm and shoulder muscles than I’ve ever had before and a big ‘ol belly.

But in all seriousness I also like to go remote once in a while and access national parks. I’m not going to be hooning it round destroying dunes, but getting to beautiful places like Cape Peron is tough without a the right vehicle.

I've been through the Bungles on a push bike - so that's a thing, but yeah, Cape Peron would be a hard slog without a boat or vehicle that can push across deep sand - water would be a tough carry.

> without the right vehicle

A loong time ago (late 1970s) I got to traverse the horizontal falls a couple of time in a home made sea kayak after being dropped off "nearby" (and later picked up again) by an old pearling lugger .. pretty low carbon effort that one, just a lot of paddling (and fishing, and digging for fresh water, and dodging the odd shark and salty croc).

Nice, I have great respect but also a level of “WTF” when encountering cyclists in the deep wilds, especially in the heat!

Passed an old guy on a pushbike with a trailer on the nullabor in 2010 and just thought “wow, that’s commitment”

Both uses were immortalised in music by the Dave Brubeck Quartet in the mid(?) 1950s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qs1J612nZs

Their peer group the "Ranters" can perhaps be tied into another Tom Cruise film, the one directed by that A Clockwork Orange director.

That's assuming we agree on the Winstanley take on Ranter principles as amounting to the excessive enjoyment of "meat, drinke, pleasures, and women".

I'm coming back up for air, these rabbit holes go deep.

> If AI destroys jobs, there will be no demand for energy

Quite the leap there. Are you imagining billions dying off with no food and no further consumption while the AI overlords cruise about in their yachts between bunkers while zooming into Davos to cosplay as Davros and chuckle about the fate of the poors?

That aside, the earth land / sea layer is still lagging in its reaction the gigatonnes of CO2 already aloft .. which isn't going to magically disappear for some generations.

Even if AI destroys jobs there will still be fossil fuel consumption adding to the CO2 already there.

> Are you imagining billions dying off with food and no further consumption while the AI overlords cruise about in their yachts between bunkers while zooming into Davos to cosplay as Davros and chuckle about the fate of the poors?

Well that’s certainly one scenario. And that scenario would decimate co2 emissions. Sure things will continue to get worse, but as most of humanity will be dead they won’t be concerned.

So your view of billions not dying is somewhat optimistic for the future

My view is more local than global - and we're all in for another few millennia, one way or another.

The US draft dodgers didn't need them.

China went all in on rare earth concentrate processing, taking the environmental hits that no one else wanted to touch.

That paid off in a concentrated lock on the bulk of rare earth applications.

Coal in China: dropping year in year out for past two decades as percentage of total energy consumption.

It only started dropping last year and by dropping you mean total % of energy generation because total coal energy production is still going up.

I appreciate the input, maybe tighten up your commentary.

Check the source we're discussing: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-elec-by-source?coun...

As you can see it is percentage of coal as part of total energy mix that has been dropping for two decades.

As already stated above. Perhaps you missed that?

You're correct that absolute tonnage of coal use is still climbing, - but at an ever decreasing rate and was predicted to peak .. of course, thanks to some shenanigans by the Hegseth's of the world that may be deferred for a while, thanks USofA!

Of course on the plus side (for the atmosphere) there's been a drop in global fossil fuel consumption, so swings, arrows.

China, of course, is still well short of total CO2 tonnage lofted over the past century in comparison with the US - even allowing for a vastly greater population.

I understand you're talking about % of energy generation and its fine to highlight it but people here are talking as if % of energy generation means less coal emissions when its actually the complete opposite. There is almost no reason to care about % of energy generation by coal when they add the level of coal production that they've added over the past 15 years. CO2 output producted after 2010 is completely different to CO2 produced pre 1950. The difference is once the world started addressing climate change china went the complete opposite direction and because they can highlight a few stats people endless sweep for them as if they're actually doing something good. They have objectively destroyed the world.

And yet, the single vastly dominant source of electricity at around 55%. It's a long way you go and a long shot to call it clean.

And yet dropping - by a series of deliberate 5 year plans with the goal of building out sufficient renewable energy to phase out coal use altogether.

Kind of like what absolutely isn't happening with the current US administration.

> I’ve been puzzled why climate change messaging seems to ignore the emissions of other large countries like China and India.

It doesn't. The issue is likely more that you don't see or read widely enough.

Even here on HN you'll see mention of China and India's emissions and use of coal on a regular basis.

The US is a significant mention for two main reasons:-

* of all the human lofted additional CO2 of the past century plus (that sourced from formerly deep underground) the US is the single largest sole country contributor (although China is catching up (but may or may not equal the US)), ...

* the US is still a large per capita contributor today (ignoring tiny tiny outlier countries with small populations and near single export fossil fuel extraction countries) - it has an energy intensive economy.

My personal beef isn't so much with the US but specifically with US based fossil fuel and resource companies of the 1970s onwards (eg: Koch brothers) who were well aware of the problem with increasing the insulation factor of the atmosphere and doubled down anyway - spending large on "think tanks" to promote confusion via media, over sell the appeal of large cars, destroy any and all grass roots campaigns for public transport, etc. (CO2MaXXing ?).

The US has had influence across the planet post WWII, these campaigns just promoted a bad example for profit and deferred early and timely addressing of the issues.

In the 60s/70s they had the world is going into another ice age scare. Based on historical patterns we are in a cooling phase based on Milankovitch cycles. A long slow cooling phase going into another ice age. You can't blame the Koch brothers.

> they had the world is going into another ice age scare.

They did, didn't they! Not in the bulk of scientific discussion though, just in media outlets, broadsheets, opinion columns, etc.

It does rather sound like somebody bought into the Koch / Heartland propaganda stream whole heartedly.

Hopefully commenters can bring up "the little ice age" et al. so we can all play denialist talking point bingo.

So the Koch brothers came up with the Milankovitch cycles. Even though it was proposed in 1842 by Joseph Adhémar then in 1860 James Croll added orbital theory in 1911 Milutin Milankovitch came up with the math.

The big event that caused it to come into pop culture in the 70s was a landmark paper by James Hays, John Imbrie and Nicholas Shackleton, published in Science in 1976.

But you think its the Koch brothers. And anyone who actual knows history is playing denialist bingo.

You've won the hacker news Candace Owens conspiracy award for ignoring facts and doubling down on a silly conspiracy theory because it fits some narrative you want to promote today.

That's not what the poster above said. Go posture somewhere else.

> So the Koch brothers came up with the Milankovitch cycles.

No.

> But you think its the Koch brothers

That's your strawman. What is known is the amount of effort put in by Koch and others to muddy the waters and belittle what became accepted internationally in the late 1960s.

> You've won the hacker news Candace Owens conspiracy award

Is that someone I should know of?

> for ignoring facts

What facts have I ignored?

> and doubling down on a silly conspiracy theory

What, that tobacco companies hired PR firms to make their poison look good, and fossil fuel companies hired more or less the exact same firms to upsell CO2 ?

That's on the record for anyone that cares to look.

> because it fits some narrative you want to promote today.

It's been the case for nigh on 50 years now - hardly a flash in pan here today gone tomorrow made up story.

Every is a bold claim. Aspirational. Good luck going forward filling them all in.

There's a fair few missing from Australia (easily more than 8 24/7 live cameras in Oz). eg: The Kings Canyon Waterholes in Watarrka National Park. (mostly dawn and dusk action)