Sure. Your average private corporation would do much better at sanely evaluating Microsoft's cloud, and sanely acting on that evaluation.

Right.

You bet.

Absolutely.

Nobody's "selling it" as more reliable than it is. People are assuming it's more reliable than it is.

> People by nature are lazy and will take shortcuts given an opportunity.

So, um, the fact that humans are behaving incompetently means we should shift the responsibility onto a machine?

Suppose a human had looked at some crappy surveillance video from hundreds of miles away, and told the primary investigator "that looks like it could be her; you might want to check it out". Would that human be the most responsible person in the chain? The moron who took that as gospel and actually made an arrest has no agency at all here?

Come on, a facial recognition match? Facial recognition probably shouldn't be used because it's bad when it works, but everybody with a functioning synapse knows that facial recognition is going to get lots of false hits.

Filibuster what, exactly? No proposal is before the Senate...

ON edit: Oops, sorry, 702 is up for renewal. Still not clear he could win a cloture vote, though.

They can remove him from all his committees, including the ones that give him access to this stuff to begin with. If they really work at it, they can freeze him out to the point where he can't get anything done on this or any other issue. And they can use him revealing the information as an excuse to avoid blowback from their own constituents. It's not as bad as in the House, but it's pretty bad. Oh, and they can probably deprive him of the floor the second he starts to say anything "interesting".

Yes, there are serious problems with the way Congress is organized, but there's probably a reason that practically every parliamentary body on the planet has similar problems.

> and they can probably deprive him of the floor the second he starts to say anything "interesting".

So, move the show off the floor, never has it been easier to reach the population as an individual. Are the citizens that enraptured by "the floor" as it is? It seems to me, that if you were serious, this would be no problem at all.

> there are serious problems with the way Congress is organized

None of that is dictated by the constitution. You can change the way committees work overnight if you want. Some would argue that this happened in the 1970s and 1990s when party politics fully invaded what used to be assignments of seniority and experience.

> but there's probably a reason

Corruption. It's worth a lot of money to certain people. You can either design that out of the system or reduce the total power of that system relative to the population.

I'm not sure you can do much until you get down to the bedrock problems here.

> So, move the show off the floor, never has it been easier to reach the population as an individual. Are the citizens that enraptured by "the floor" as it is?

Nope, but his immunity from prosecution for disclosing classified information only applies during Congressional debate. Once he takes it off "the floor", they can just arrest him.

Yep, just throw them kids under the bus.

> smarter than your average threat

Well, there's a good candidate for the dumbest assumption I'm going to see this month.

What assumption?

Well funded and planned security threats are overwhelmingly outliers. Most security threats in airports are drunk and pissed off idiots, and most terrorists are lone wolf crazies with zero experience or expertise in security.

Those aren't the ones who are actually going to do serious damage. Drunk pissed off idiots haven't planned to be carrying anything anyway. Lone wolf crazies might get organized enough to be in the line in the first place... and if they do, well, crazy is not actually mutually exclusive with smart or even knowledgeable. And you still have the assumption that it matters how smart you are. There are only so many places to hide a weapon, and being smarter doesn't give you more choices.

A red teamer is going to be better suited at picking the right thing to hide and right way to conceal it, not because they have more options, but because they understand which combination of options are more likely to exploit the weaknesses of their target.

There are parental control settings on most of the devices kids have right now. Most parents don't use them (https://fosi.org/parental-controls-for-online-safety-are-und...) . Where's your vast majority?

By the way, that does not imply that they're "underutilized". That part of the article is pure opinion.

Err... "Most" is doing some heavy lifting here. 51% of parents do use parental controls on their kid's tablets, and 47% on smartphones.

And there's no breakdown by age. Kids don't magically become able to handle the uncensored internet the day they turn 18.

Did it ever occur to you that parents who don't use restrictions maybe have kids that are almost 18? Or parents of kids who have shown themselves to be responsible? Or that the parents use other methods to restrict use (like only allowing supervised use with the parent for very young children)?

Do they work universally or are they easy to bypass by finding an app they don't cover?

> And some kids haven't got their head straight after puberty at 16, and still need (or would have needed) the training wheels.

But on average they don't.

> Society works on averages.

Right. So setting the rules around the outliers is wrong. Glad you're clear on that.

> Most people being ready little adults at 16 doesn't mean everyone is.

You don't have to be a completely self-sufficient adult to handle the freaking Internet.

I feel like I'm in a comedy show where I'm the only one who actually reads what others are writing.

There's no evidence in this response or others that you're reading what other people are writing.

Sometimes the kids basically run away to universities as soon as they're of age.

> You get to pick it, it isn't mandatory that it be checked, and it doesn't need to be a date, just the bucket. Is that still too onerous?

Yes, because (a) it wouldn't do anything, and (b) it would take about 5 seconds for the morons who push this stuff to start whining about that fact, and using the fact that "Society(TM) has mandated this and people are avoiding it" to demand effective verification, which would be a huge disaster.

They won't be placated by anything short of total victory, and if you give them anything, you're just enouraging them.