They may have done, but if you’re referring to the kidnapped woman who’s footage was pulled from the backend after they said she didn’t have a subscription, she had a Google Nest Camera.
I wouldn’t doubt that Amazon does this too but Google is just as bad if not worse.
I think this may depend on the instance you’re on. The “trans” spam bot hit up my sister’s account but she’s on fedia/mbin. I haven’t noticed the other abuses per se to be like. Rampant or anything.
But I also don’t check DM’s.
I know of a guy who had his driver’s license permanently revoked because he racked up so many DUI’s. He lived in rural Indiana, and bought a moped because they didn’t require a license to drive. Obviously he did not stop driving drunk.
But also, the moped did in fact make noise.
That’s wonderful. Would not that cost be better spent designing roads that deter speeding by design?
Buses cost money to run, and rural upstate New York (just like a lot of rural areas that are car dependant) do not necessarily have the infrastructure to implement them. Which is exactly why I said shuttles, not buses.
Public transit isn’t going to pop out of the ether to fix the problem so that we can just take away people’s personal property because they broke the law as if they no longer own it. Civil forfeiture is already a broken law without us making it worse for poor people while rich people continue to get a pass.
They’ll buy new vehicles. You can legally purchase a car without a driver’s license in most states. You just have to have someone who can legally drive it off the lot of deliver it. Which is simple for a rich person, but not for a poor person.
Like it could be if we were willing to spend the amount of money it would cost to build and upkeep that infrastructure. But that would also likely mean civil forfeiture of land. Because bus stops and side walks and depots don’t just show up because you want to take people’s cars away.
The cost of all that, plus the cost of implementing the ability to store or sell these vehicles is going to be problematic and more costly than the proposal, which is more fair than the alternative because it treats people regardless of the economic situation the same.
I don’t like the proposal, but I can certainly understand why it’s being proposed as a better way to fix the problem.
Is the plan to store these cars they’re seizing in your plan somewhere? To sell them?
How much is the cost of seizing and storing a vehicle? How much is the cost of building a place to house these seized vehicles?
Who pays that cost?
Where is such a facility going to be built?
Even if you did sell the vehicles, who gets the proceeds? What stops the person from suing the state or municipality for selling items that don’t belong to them?
That’s even before we think about the economic impact of these people living in a very car dependant place where that vehicle makes the difference between being able to have access to food and transportation to get to work.
Is the state going to provide shuttles to get these people groceries and to and from work? Who pays for that?
I have a lot of questions about why you’d want it to be okay to seize the property of a person just because they broke the law.
Police can and do already seize and sell assets whether you have committed a crime or not. Usually people want to end such overreach but now you’re all the sudden siding with the gestapo in order to seize people’s assets because you feel self righteous?
The math doesn’t math on this.
What if the car doesn’t belong to them? Are we going to suddenly start seizing the assets of someone who leant them the vehicle?
Much better to spend tax payer money to design and implement road features that inhibit speeding.
You’re right. But that can only last so long.
Didn’t Ford’s CEO just say they wanted highschool graduates who could do math to be automotive techs making $120K a year?
Plumbers already make ridiculous amounts of money because there aren’t enough of them.
The median age in my field 5-10 years ago was 55 years old and we aren’t getting an influx of new A&P licensed techs still. The main way the Aviation industry gets it’s techs these days is the military and that’s not even a sure fire way.
Like. CEO’s doing trades when? Because he’s clearly mistaken if he thinks that it’s not going to be CEO’s and upper management people who get their jobs replaced by AI.
They keep trying to replace engineers, software devs and so on with AI at all the tech companies and then having to back out of that decision to keep things running.
You don’t own a shovel? If you have hands, you can make a shovel. We will need the shovels for the mass grave after the elite are all gone. You know, so we don’t allow the spread of diseases from necrotizing flesh.
That’s not what you said. You said they never receive updates.
We lived with that because of the technology of the time and cost. An e-ink display of the equivalent size of a TV is gonna be expensive as fuck. And not do better than it’s traditional tv counterpart at video output for viewing. The other person mentioned monitors and those make sense because you’re generally using them for computer stuff which isn’t traditionally movies, television, or games. And if all you want to do is scroll the web and use it for spreadsheets, you’re fine there.
But gamers aren’t going to buy an e-ink display for gaming. And generally people who want to watch TV and movies won’t either.
I’d watch a movie on my phone before I tried it on e-ink.
My TV isn’t going to update because it’s been lobotomized.
It’s funny that you think smart TVs don’t receive updates. It’s got a wifi chip for a reason.
I doubt this. I use an e-ink android tablet as an e-reader. I like that it’s easy on the eyes. For using it to scroll Lemmy or even a web page, it’s fine. But the refresh rate (even on the best settings) makes watching a video or gif on it painful.
I don’t think anyone really wants an e-ink TV unless they want something that’s a hybrid. The things you’d use a tv for are just not e-ink things.
They also seem to have replaced their PR team with AI, given all the stuff he probably should have been coached not to say in this interview.
You’re asking them to put their livelihood on the line for your privacy. They’re gonna choose the thing that pays their bills every time.
I agree with you in general, I think the problem is that people who do understand Gen AI (and who understand what it is and isn’t capable of, and why), get rationally angry when it’s humanized by using words like these to describe what it’s doing.
The reason they get angry is because this makes people who do believe in the “intelligence/sapience” of AI more secure in their belief set and harder to talk to in a meaningful way. It enables them to keep up the fantasy. Which of course helps the corps pushing it.
I didn’t. But I also can’t say I’ve been paying attention.
GiGo.
You can also do this via the web portal if you happen to have wifi access. Just in case someone needed that information.