No, it means you stop eating at McDonald's.

Its already over priced and its complete shit for you in almost every conceivable way. If your options are Eat McDonald's or die a slow death of starvation ... starvation is still the better choice.

If they're freely offering $10k, then it's likely they've calculated the true cost to be much higher than that. You don't open a price negotiation by overpaying.

Slave labor in the developing world helps keep prices down as well.

And you you think this is going to 'make it better' you're really dense.

Anyone doing ram swaps will just flash the old firmware and ship it - it'll boot fine until the purchaser upgrades it to new firmware - and suddenly the firmware update broke it, and who was responsible for that update ... RPF - who intentionally broke a working device so they could somehow claim it was to make the user experience better?

The excuse that this is going to solve problems is either outrageously ignorant and short sighted - or complete bullshit :) You have to be smoking some really good shit to buy this fucked up logic.

I suspect RPF will find themselves on the end of lawsuits regarding bricking devices. Doesn't matter if the devices were fakes or not - accidently breaking a device because its fake and you didn't know better is one thing. Actively detecting and breaking things on purpose is entirely different. Intent matters.

Either way - RPF will be less appealing to even more people who will now just start with an alternative and avoid RPF all together, which is good cause anything that screws Broadcom is good for humanity :)

The irony of you confusing 'cuck' with MAGA when it was in fact invented by the opposite group ...

Raspberry Pi has literally NEVER been about the tinkerer. You like many are confused by the BS they spew about their goals but they have always been about making money. Any thing indicating they were for 'tinkering' was a side effect they hand't figured out how to squelch yet. These guys are not altruistic in any form.

It didnt' affect 'the channels' - it affected cheap knock off sites in the exact same way that literally every product on the planet is affected. There is nothing at all unique to the RaspPi channel other than the raspberry pi, which as the knock off show, isn't unique.

As for your last line - not sure thats worth a response - you get offended at the word cuck - then demonstrate being a cuck for the raspberry pi guys ...

All of this is fine and your choice of course, but the high horse you think you're on is pretty sad looking. The instant you have to lead your comments with a political insult - that you don't even understand the etymology of, you demonstrate you don't have an argument in the first place.

Its mind numbing that you're proud of this and tell us about it, 'look at me, I'm being taken advantage of and used AND I LIKE IT' - talk about a cuck ...

Not sure why this was modded flamebait. I don't see anything grossly inaccurate and any editorializing isn't exactly couched in fantasy.

That largely depends on what the contract actually says, and how the data is 'federated' within Flock's own systems.

It sounds like Flock's business model was to build the massive data-collection system, but since that's expensive, it used contracts with government entities to pay for the build-out. The contracts with each of the entities might well be for the services delivered to them, but since many municipalities have separate contracts for how real estate (and installing something on a light pole counts) then Flock might be maintaining their own contracts separately for the physical placement of their cameras.

So Flock gets agencies/government to pay for the services of license plate data collection with one contract then uses another contract for Flock to pay for the rental for pole space. If the contract to provide data to the polity lapses or is terminated, that doesn't necessarily mean that Flock's permits to maintain equipment on poles is also terminated as they're separate contracts. Granted, operating the cameras is on Flock's dime now, but if they continue to harvest data then they might find takers for that data even if not the original municipality or other agency who paid for the cameras.

The thing that our current interpretation of the Constitution lacks is where the dividing line between one's self and a third-party sits when it comes to the sanctity of one's person, papers, and effects. At the time that the Constitution was written there was no photography, let alone videography, mass-processing of records automatically, etc. Someone had to physically observe someone in public in order to know what they did, and could only repeat with their words what they saw rather than demonstrating it. We don't have good law for 3rd party collection of volumes of data about people and the ability of said 3rd party to provide that data to the government. A ruling, law, or amendment that puts protections on requesting information and establishes some kind of checks and balances system that applies to the government in all its forms is needed. I don't know what the threshold should be either, but clearly right now when we have stories where the justification for a search is, "ASDFG" then something needs to change.

It is possible to put laws into place that require how public-private partnerships work. It would be an imposition upon Flock and upon the police. And that is just fine, and as it should be.

Law enforcement contracting to the private sector should not be allowed to be a bypass of our rights.

The only place I see Al in the legal profession making sense is to do basic caselaw research, where it can cite the sources and the references upstream and downstream to those sources. The lawyer should be responsible to review the claimed caselaw citations to determine the merit of their support for the argument that the lawyer is making, and to pick the particular citations to use that are the strongest for the particular case.

Likewise the same sort of search but inverted, for one's opponent's most likely arguments or rebuttals might be performed, again with the lawyer doing the review based on the citations that the Al tool provided.

There was a television series in the 2010s called Person of Interest where the premise was that one of the main characters had managed to achieve Al, but in order to satisfy legal constraints, the Al was only allowed to spit-out a single phrase about a person, rather than any detail of any sort. It was up to the limited number of persons associated with the Al to figure out why this 'person of interest' had been referenced, whether they were the perpetrator, the victim, a witness, or someone who would suffer downstream effects. While soft science fiction, and pretty clearly taking inspiration from the older series Quantum Leap in having to figure out why they were there, the concept had some merit as to how Al should really be used. It should be treated as untrusted, it should be treated as requiring thorough review. It should be treated as another tool available, but no more trustable or authoritative than any other, and arguably a bit less trustable, a bit less authoritative.

I've seen firsthand in meetings people saying, "Well Claude says..." or "Well ChatGPT says..."

What's bothering me about this is that those running the meeting aren't shutting that crap down immediately.

Except that in basically all of the examples that you cite, the transition was from one proven technology slowly into another technology that was at least approaching some degree of maturity by the time it it mass-market adoption.

In most of those examples. early adopters were nearly all ultrawealthy who were using it for themselves. Those who weren't incredibly rich were technology-enthusiasts of some fashion or another. Those groups initially worked-out most of the showstopper-problems with the technology before widespread adoption, and in many of those industries either compatibility or outright law added extra constraint over time.

AI for the masses has taken a different development path. It's not ready and is misbehaving, to the detriment of many. "Hallucinations" should not be tolerated at this scale of deployment.

Not if you're the police.

Or as it was put nearly two millennia ago, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

This is why systems like this require human oversight. Arguably if there's a judicial review process for allowing searches, then this system needs to be required to use that process. With a system containing precinct, local court district, municipal, county, state, and federal district jurisdictions, the nature of setting up proper permissions alone should be a mandatory herculean effort, probably the most difficult part of the entire system.

Without such a system requiring judicial oversight to confirm that searches are authorized, all we have is a further slide into a police-state.

Where I live. (North Carolina), any one involved in a conversation is allowed to record the conversation from the moment they entered it until it ends, without any consent required. This is not uncommon as it allows people to protect themselves from others scams/threats/ect.

Anyone who think their conversation is secure and private is sadly mistaken. Its only private as long as all other parties respect you.

Get over this silly notion that you can say things to someone and it leave no evidence beyond a man's word. The time for low grade liars has passed.

Please cite a time when any European country has held a CEO personally and criminally liable for something.