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

A calendar-clock change like this needs at least a year of time to prepare it and get all the software systems tested and ready for the change when it happens.

Even if they pass the law now doesn't mean it has to take effect when it's passed. Indeed, most newly passed laws' effective date isn't the day it's passed but typically months in the future. (However, if a law is declared unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional immediately.)

12PM is fucking noon is when the fucking sun is at its highest position in the sky.

While I somewhat share your sentiment, noon (as shown by your clock or watch, let's call it clock-noon) is not when the sun is at its highest point in the sky except for exactly 4 days per year and only if you just so happen to be standing on one of the 24 meridian lines on Earth.

When the sun is at its highest point in the sky is solar noon and isn't what most people mean (or what your clock or watch means) by "noon."

The discrepancy happens due to (1) the Earth's axial tilt, (2) the Earth position in its orbit, and (3) time zones. The first two can be compensated for using the Equation of Time. If you don't compensate, then you can be off by as much as 14 slow (around February 11) or 16 minutes fast (around November 3).

For time zones, you have to adjust by your longitude relative to your time zone's central meridian: for every degree east or west, you have to subtract or add 4 minutes, respectively.

Live with nature and quit fucking denying it like a conservative.

Ideally, yes, but reality isn't the way it is for the convenience of humans and it would be highly impractical for everyone to have his or her own local time based on their (current) longitude.

That said, the twice-a-year changing of our clocks certainly doesn't help matters.

Shut down the whole business ..

Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

"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...

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

They sell it to the government. The government is partaking of these services. THE GOVERNMENT IS VIOLATING THE 4TH AMENDMENT!!!! ....using Flock cameras.

Agreed, and I never said otherwise. If the police beat you with a club while in custody violating the constitution, the club manufacturer, say Acme, isn't violating the Constitution. Only the police are even though they're using Acme clubs.

But Flock is still not violating the Constitution. The fact that you seem incapable of understanding that distinction (and typing in ALL CAPS) doesn't make you right.

Your cell phone carrier is not violating the Constitution even though they are collecting your location data constantly. Neither is Apple nor Google. It's not unless the government (and only the government) searches through that data, especially without a warrant, that it's a problem.

Again, distinction. Distinctions matter. If you still get get it, well, I don't know what to tell you.

"Contextually related" isn't a thing. Either they are are aren't violating the Constitution. They aren't any more that you cell phone carrier is for knowing your location at all times.

The OP directed said Flock was violating:

Won't someone PLEASE think about the poor corporate overlords?

They're only violating the constitution so that they can hire more employees!

The story is about Flock. The OP said "corporate": Flock (not the police) is a corporation. Therefore, the "They" in "They're" refers to Flock being able to hire more employees. The story was about Flock laying off employees. There's no sensible way Flock wasn't meant as the entity allegedly doing the violating.

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.

It was a rhetorical device to show that Flock isn't violating the Constitution.

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...

Unless you can cite the specific ruling and how it's relevant to a private company collecting data, I have no reason to believe you.

Flock collecting data is no more a violation of the Constitution than your cell phone carrier (or Google or Apple) collecting your cell phone location data.

It's not until the police search that data without a valid warrant that it becomes an issue; but there mere collection of the data by Flock violates nothing.

Cite the part of the Constitution that specifically mentions stalking.