Fast, cheap, good. They’re going for 1 out of 3.

I can’t help but think “Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly” with this news

but I think vr at this point has become an expensive novelty

Always has been. I went to demonstrations of this tech in the nineties when I was in college. It was going to be the next big thing. That never happened. It seems to come back every few years and then fade out again.

That’s Stellantis. It’s the same company that’s building cards that are now showing ads when the car stops at a red light.

And if when the AI fails, buddy billionaires will be there to offer privatized alternative, for a fee of course.

How “Les Misérables” of them. Jean Valjean got 19 years for stealing bread. 15 years is light in comparison.

a few months later

Why are insurance companies just stopping with insuring houses and businesses? Without insurance, no loans, no economic activity!

Let’s study this. Aaand it’s defunded. Looks like it’ll remain a mystery, sir.

It’s why somebody make this. They too were missing the keyboard

The issue isn’t the way of testing, but the two standards. If Musk blows up rockets in testing it’s a genius move with rapid iteration. If NASA does this it’s irresponsible handling of tax payer’s money on risky endeavors.

38% of the population as user. 20% daily active users. The classic way to grow is to squeeze the users and advertisers more and more with fees, subscriptions, tiers, … I guess the exodus at X has them spooked of what could happen if they continue with that plan, so they’re trying this AI thing.

Meta is probably screwed already. Their user base is not growing as before, maybe shrinking in some markets, and they need the padding to cover it up.

Opponents point out that encryption backdoors might not significantly improve law enforcement’s

There have been cases where police was granted access to the data, but the crimes it was supposed to stop just continued. Not enough personnel, equipment, too difficult or some excuse like that. But if you don’t have enough resources to use the data in a meaningful way, why grant access?

That brings us to the next part, abuse of that data. There have been cases where the access to the data is used to go after organisers of legal protest against environment or labor. Going after certain political parties to harass them, usually left wing, also happens. And there have been cases of police using their access to stalk an ex.

It doesn’t seem to be a net positive.

deleted by creator

Of course they’re conveniently ignoring refineries catching fire or even gas station explosions. That seem to be regular events.

The article doesn’t mention in any way the cost. The rough calcifications for a system like this usually say that installation, replacements and transmission systems are an order of magnitude more expensive eliminating any advantage over ground based solar with batteries.

I just wanted simple updates from the people i follow in a chronological order. But no, it had to be by the algorithm, all in seemingly random order, and the feed full of slop I didn’t ask for being force fed like I’m a turkey being prepared for the holidays, That’s why I left.

It’s said climate scientists did not publish the worst case scenarios because it would be seen as too alarmist. These were basically civilization-ending.

Social media has a very good ratio of information spreading versus effort required. It’s also why it’s a popular thing for misinformation and influence campaigns.

In contrast, if a government agency wants to make a website for this, it probably needs a proposal, budget request, approval by a commission, a bidding process, and other bureaucatic procedures put in place by politicians that wanted to lower spending.

They figure ports and IP addresses that link or distribute wares can be globally blocked and that will solve their problem.