First, I'd paste it into notepad just to make sure.

The Meta Rayban glasses have a light when it's active. Now granted, many people do pay a mobile repair person to permanently disable that light. But personally, I think the people that do not disable that light shouldn't be penalized. And for that reason, I think the law is badly written.

I don't think people looking for entertainment are going to pay to watch a propaganda hit piece.

Teslas, BMW's, Rivian, and Mercedes have cameras all around the vehicle that are always on, and if a security incident is detected they will save the video from a few minutes before the incident to right after the incident.

A quick search shows that Tesla theft (by example) is 90% to 99% lower than the national average, and I assume the other types are similar.

People do not steal cars because of *flock* cameras, they are always on, and the data is available to law enforcement with no oversight.

Personal vehicles save video locally, and it's only used when an actual crime is committed.

I'm in favor of public surveillance that's kept local to whichever user, in the manner of a ring doorbell video (if that were kept local, which it is not). It prevents crime without violating rights - the burglar shouldn't have been on the property to begin with.

This leads to an interesting thought. Flock is a company that keeps videos across the country and tracks vehicles, and soon to include facial recognition. Flock cameras would be entirely acceptable if the video were "owned" by someone local to the actual camera, so that police would have to query the owner to get a video.

I'm not sure who the "owner" would be in this case, but hypothetically if the camera were on the telephone pole outside of a house, if we consider the video owned by the property owner then the possibility of a rights violation would go down precipitously.

Just a thought, and an under-developed one.

We need new ideas to help solve new problems, here is one to chew on.

Fine, show us all your simple way to port Doom to SQL.

"There use to be news, with editors that would filter out the wrongthink"
FTFY

Wading through the garbage, one does find a few gems from time to time. Not unfounded rumours, but verified stories with links to sources that the regular newspapers do not print for some reason, or discussions and opinions outside of your own bubble. And it becomes clear how much of a bubble mainstream publications have become. Or maybe they always were...

A couple of things about the issue.

Firstly, it's usually explained using insult and hyperbole. That's not a way to get others on your side. There's an old saying "it's not enough to be correct, you also have to be effective". It's usually used on... wait for it... nerds, who are typically very smart but cannot communicate well, and who fall back on insults when they cannot communicate well.

Secondly, for some reason no one wants to debate the issue. The mantra is "the science is settled", which isn't really how science works, but there are STILL gaping logical holes in the entire edifice that no one wants to clear up. Such as: other than rising global temperatures, the theory hasn't made testable predictions of any consequence that have actually come true. For example, in 2005 after Katrina, someone noted that "due to climate change, hurricanes will become stronger and more frequent", and then we had about a decade of no major hurricanes.

Thirdly, and this is the one that really bothers me: even if the science is settled, even if the conclusions are correct, climate change does not indicate what should be done. I've reviewed probably two or three dozen experiments aiming to mitigate the effects over the years, they ALL had the best of intentions, and they've ALL failed, sometimes spectacularly, and always adding more CO2 to the atmosphere than if we had done nothing.

In the meantime, since 2000 when Al Gore brought the issue into the public eye, I've seen the rise of solar panel farms, windmills are everywhere in the midwest, and we've gone from about 2% renewable (year 2000, mostly hydropower, and discounting wood) to about 30% today (also discounting wood). New technology is taken up at an exponential rate, so expect those numbers to rise faster in the near future.

Several technologies have been developed that we're right on the edge of deploying (carbon capture by electrolysis, fusion energy generation, robotic labor (various companies)) or in the middle of deploying (EVs, various companies) that should help enormously.

And finally, the issue has become political. The premier maker of EVs, the one who made EVs that people want to buy, is vilified by the political side that wants you to believe in climate change. A sect of that side wants to replace capitalism with communism, even though the resource utilization of that model is one third to one half of what we have today, and would slow down the innovation and advancement that might help us solve the issue.

But if you're not on board, you're a science denier.

It took 40 years to convince everyone that smoking was bad for us, now we have to endure the people who think they're right and have to insult us because we don't believe them.

Stop badgering us about it, it's not about science it's about economics, and it won't be a problem in a decade or two.

(Note for the observant: This post is rife with observable trends and verifiable facts, so expect the other side to downvote it into oblivion, because that's the way to convince people.)

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.

2-bit crypto schemes

I think the president is running a grave risk of his key being brute-forced!

How about governments using AI to process intelligence and making strategic decisions based on the AI's "insights".

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 ...

If I call tech support or the bank or whatever, I don't want, need nor expect to see the other person's face. In general, video calling isn't widely used except in multi-person meetings, or when calling a loved one overseas. The avatar is not needed.

Also, give your AI agent a phone number where I can reach it, or give it its dedicated app or whatever, but default to "handset mode" like a regular phone call. Let me put it on speaker if and when I want to. Turning the interaction into a regular phone call will go a long way towards making the conversation feel more natural. Interacting with Siri and Alexa feels unnatural; adding an animated avatar to a disembodied voice won't help, even if the conversation itself flows naturally. I know, a phone call isn't suitable for every interaction, especially when collaborating or co-creating with someone, but it covers most cases.

But I guess a simple audio call is harder to monetize.

Exactly. "like if startup school Y Combinator and Peter Thiel's build-a-company-instead of-college Fellowship Program had a baby" sounds like pure nightmare fuel. Like learning to swim in a shark tank.

Actually, Ayn Rand proposed something exactly like this...