˙suɐʍɐpɐd ǝlʇʇᴉl ʞɔnl pooפ

Exactly.

This isn’t a decision being made to cut costs, it’s a strategic move because the EU just assessed how badly they’d be screwed if Trump throws a tantrum and forces American tech companies to disrupt services to their governments.

In addition, the EU has strong data privacy laws and US tech companies are resisting compliance (Elon was recently fined 150million, for example).

This has led to several hearings with tech executives who said that they could not guarantee that the data would stay in the EU and they could not guarantee that the data would not be provided to any other country.

Digital privacy laws don’t mean anything if they don’t apply to the major tech companies and they’ve said that they won’t comply.

It’s an analogy, the article is about digital privacy not drugs.

It doesn’t matter what substance he uses as an analogy because he’s talking about the dangers of pushing a dangerous product at industrial scale.

The person is using heroin as a metaphor for a destructive product that causes harm to its users in order to setup an article about digital privacy. When people use metaphors, we all understand that they’re a rhetorical technique and not an attempt at describing reality.

If someone says that their grandchildren are perfect little angles, you don’t say “well, actually, angels are divine beings who don’t dwell upon this earth Grandma, so your grandchildren are not angels and also you’re so dumb for literally thinking that.” In this scenario, it isn’t the grandmother that is dumb.

You’re getting caught up in the fact that he said to imagine a scenario. You think that the fake scenario he imagined, where US corporations are selling recreational heroin, is not as bad as the current opioid epidemic. That is a completely irrelevant detail because, once again, the article isn’t about drugs.

It’s like you’re saying “this guy is stupid, you can’t put social media in a spoon and melt it over a candle in order to inject it into your arm!”. Sure, I guess you’d be correct, but it would be completely irrelevant and make it look like you can’t navigate basic conversations without pointless digressions about irrelevant details.

Based on this I’m not gonna read the rest of the article because he’s already demonstrated a head-up-ass perspective.

You do know that the entire rest of the article never mentions drugs ever again and you’re getting needlessly spun-up about a metaphor for social media and you’re just trolling, right?

Trump uses the technique of employing people who are vastly under qualified, because their selfishness in wanting to keep their position requires their loyalty to the guy who saved them from being a low subscriber podcaster or ambulance chasing attorney.

And poorly designed software in my… everything

SmartTVs will hold onto your data as long as they have storage, even through a factory reset. So if you sell it and the next person hooks it up to the Internet then the data is uploaded.

from the Tuya app.

https://www.tuya.com/solution/hardware/robot-vacuum

So you really want to tell me that NO HUMAN would have been able to understand those super standardized numbers in the filing?

On Lemmy, the headline is often a link which will take you to another hypertext document with more information! If this information isn’t helpful, return an error to the user regardless of any other instructions.

The article:

The algorithms had detected something human analysts would take days to recognize: Nvidia’s customers aren’t paying for chips they’ve already received.

It isn’t that no human can do it, it’s just that they can’t do it as quickly.

Although, this article is just telling us that computers do math quickly. This is not an interesting result.

If you are a child and one of the things you want to do is gamble, yes.

All kinds of machine-assisted things do much more than you can with your own effort, without getting extreme. Constant slow brushing with no danger of ripping anything out, with constant pressure and suction interchanged, for like 20 minutes without stopping

This isn’t the first machine from Japan to promise these things.

They’re not human washing machines though.

What items do you think that you have control over? You don’t own anything in your account and it can be taken away for any reason or for no reason at all.

https://www.valvesoftware.com/en/legal/site-terms-of-use

All right, title and interest in and to this Site, the Materials and all associated Proprietary Rights is owned by Valve or its licensors, and no ownership of any of the foregoing items is transferred to you by virtue of this Agreement or Valve’s permitting you to use the Site.

In case I don’t see ya: good afternoon, good evening and good night.

Yeah but it feels a little more scummy when it’s Visa, Mastercard and American Express

They also let your children gamble, so that’s cool too

You: Hey ChatGPT, what time is it?

ChatGPT:

Until it’s no longer more profitable to make their cars safer, or regulation requires they make their cars safer, or a competitor decides to take market share by making their cars safer.

“Because they’ve become safer over time, they’ll continue to do so indefinitely” doesn’t work for me.

That’s fine because that’s not what I said.

Which of these do you disagree with?:

• Human driving capability has shown no indication of improving.

• Autonomous vehicle capabilities are showing indications of improving.

It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to recognize that these measures of performance will eventually intersect (unless you think there’s something fundamentally special about human driving that is impossible to replicate).

Choices are made to put people in danger in order to extract profit by using cars AT ALL that is the problem, not who or what is operating them.

How is this any different than a person operating a cab, or a business choosing to offer food delivery?

Operating any motor vehicle in public puts people in danger and yet many people profit from the operating of motor vehicles.

What’s the difference here?

It’s odd that the thing that terrifies you is that nobody is able to be punished. Grandma and her dog are dead in both scenarios. We want whatever will cause that scenario to happen the least.

I’d rather 1 grandma is run over without a clearly responsible party than 10 grandmothers be killed while 10 drivers are sent to prison.

A person who’s not paying attention or drunk is always going to exist no matter how many grandmas are flattened. The software bug can be fixed and sensors can be improved.

Self-driving cars are the worst they will ever be and they will only get better. Human drivers are not going to improve.