It was my understanding that the film industry wound up in California because of the year-round temperate climate and the wide variety of shooting locales. But I did some googling and learned that there was another reason: the industry wanted to avoid patents held by Thomas Edison on the east coast, which he and others used to exert control over movie-making. And California land was cheap at the time.

Oops. make that slant.

Well no, it's not just entertainment. News is in the deal also, specifically CBS and CNN.

Many had fears the Ellisons' takeover would change the editorial sland of CNN. But perhaps this might not happen. Per TFA:

So ... we'll see.

The issue is not that a single company's product will not improve as quickly. It's that the plaintiffs think the big players got together and decided to to slow down development of their products, supposedly to increase profits at the expense of subscribers. In effect, the plaintiffs are claiming that's a cartel.

It's not so much "the product might have been better" as it is "you're trying to make it so that nobody's product will get better." If all the big AI players sign on, then subscribers are stuck with a non-competitive market with lost value for their subscriptions.

Frankly I see the AI companies prevailing, not because the plaintiffs can't show harm, but because they can claim a "public safety exception." And if that doesn't work, then they can negotiate a settlement so that the lawyers and the class representatives get something modest, others get a token payment, and the industry has more time to figure out how to protect against renegade AI.

When machines can replace humans, they are more than tools. They become threats to peoples' livelihoods. The current rise of AI is not the first time this has happened.

Something/someone is encouraging this disillusionment. Such encouragement can be convincing in conditions where the status quo appears to be failing. And that is when a radical authoritarian (right or left) can take power by following two simple steps: (1) get people angry, confused, or afraid; and (2) present themselves as the only solution.

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time [...]

-- Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947

Whoops, never mind. The /s tag was in the subject line. "duh" on me. Sorry.

I don't think even AI could grasp what he's proposing. I'm not even sure he does. What exactly is this AI force going to fight against, other than legislative constraints against the development of AI? By appearance, this is another branch of the military. What will it protect?

[You forgot the /s tag, but well-played.]

Those ducks, who somehow think it's okay to sleep on roads, will become extinct eventually, due to Darwinian selection.

I do not at all wish for the same dire consequences for the MAGA crowd, but I hope they will become extinct nonetheless, due to attrition.

You are confused. First of all, I have provided nothing for you to think it's "obvious" that I support private industry's behaviors here. I already said explicitly that I'm no fan of Flock. I'm not carrying their water, or anyone else's in private industry.

As for the Fourth Amendment being "semantics and obviously false separation of government and private companies" -- well you're clearly wrong. The Fourth Amendment places constraints on government not the governed. If the government buys data from private companies in such a way that the government violates the Fourth Amendment, then that's clearly on the government, not anyone else. Other laws constrain companies.

As for who is worth spending time time on, I'll let others here decide.

I think I understand the difference at least as well as you do.

First of all "privacy in a piblic place" is exactly what is being asked for. And generally it is not something one can expect.

You're talking about enhanced surveillance which does in fact have constitutional limits for the government, but less clear limits for private companies or individuals. In the latter situation, I think they need to cross the line into stalking or harassment before there is a legal case. But IANAL, so consider that.

Good point. IANAL, but I was in a discussion on this site a week or two ago regarding Flock, did some research, and learned that while being observed in (or from) a public place, even with a camera, is not a violation of privacy, the use of enhanced technologies could violate the Fourth Amendment. "Enhanced" supposedly meant things like telephoto lenses or thermal imagers, but I can imagine it also meaning algorithmic analysis.

That's for government surveillance. Private surveillance has more complicated laws, some of which vary by state, but what I gather is that "reasonable expectation" of privacy does not apply to video in public spaces. Stalking and harassment can be prosecuted though.

I want to be clear here: I'm no fan of Flock. However, if you want privacy when you're in a public place, you're asking for something as incongruous as water not being wet.

Why do you hope this person is Canadian specifically?

Please note that Canada does in fact protect free speech explicitly in its Constitution, including "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication".

There are exceptions, pertaining to hate speech, defamation, obscenity, child pornography, incitement to violence, and direct threats.

I'm a Canadian who lives permanently in the USA, so I can see it from both sides.

I'll let that stand. But my first reaction when I saw the headline was that it reflected on people who play Doom.

[JK!]