For some, it's larger than a forklift upgrade; they're highly invested into the ecosystem and it rocks their world to change. These are captive, but This Is The Way of the likes of Microsoft, Oracle, and others.

The rest of those pesky customers can go eff off because they weren't worth it in support costs to VMWare.

This is where innovation ends, the Oil Well Stage. The skies will darken, and eventually the crude runs dry, but we laughed to the banks.

VMWare was once highly innovative.... until they weren't.

To go all Register on you, AI Sauce has lead and PCBs in it, and probably always will.

\Kleptocracy is a horrific robbery, and the sale of telemetry data is a prime example. No matter the jurisdiction, removal of private information, and not simple anonymizing is terribly important.

The creep of creeps peeping into personal lives must stop.

Except your insurance company knows your VIN and can cross reference your "anonymous" data with your insurer's db.

Don't kid yourself. You must not use any app, and must disconnect both antennas in your car, thus disabling both the radio and OnStar. Worse, using the entertainment system in some cars can render the telemetry data once the service dept logs into your car.

Even used cars from the 2000s have this data. You need to look at every model to determine what your data exposure risks are.

IMHO, no used car should have data sent without specific consent. Otherwise, many theories of invasion of privacy come to mind.

Except, in many states-- despite your coverage-- the time needed to repair an out of service vehicle can be charged to you, which your insurer is not liable for.

Read contracts carefully. Know what your policy does and does not cover if you rent, lease, or use an app for a Zip-like car.

No, you conflate airline maintenance responsibility with Boeing responsibility. The caption is about obvious problems with airline responsibility. Boeing responsibility is another whole can of worms.

Logic is not empirical, it's a bunch of equations whose summation defines a trend. Trust is a human emotion that uses logic along with fear-based presumptions to arrive at a transient value embracing action with a self-predicted outcome.

The self-certification status was for NEW aircraft, delivered and deployed by the airlines, not their ongoing maintenance; the two are separate subjects with different motivations and profit motives, each industry bound to each other but with different business cycles.

This is complex math. Doesn't mean that the overall problem can't be summarized by the phrase "fucked up".

That's pretty binary thinking. Insurance companies pretty much demand that maintenance cycles are honored, and the FAA will toast you if you deviate too far from them.

Yes, they eat into profits, but that new, higher bag fee makes up for the difference.

This is not to defend their practices, rather, to target your "long story short" fallacy. It's just not that simple. Nonetheless, we agree that the airline (and their many contractors) are responsible for the astute and logged maintenance. It keeps fliers alive.

There is no evidence so far of a defective part. There might not even be any, a maintenance or other problem. People will leap to conclusions, the correlation==causation myth.

I'm no fan of Boeing, but airlines are responsible for maintenance. Pilots are who fly the plane. Nothing in these stories alludes to this being a Boeing problem.

It's OK to heap on Boeing for other problems, but this is just click-bait and likely not a Boeing problem.

You can convert to ASCII, a token, an encrypted seed or hash, and still bring it back to its original meaning, intent, and punctuation.

Theft is theft is theft is theft.

Permission is permission is permission is permission.

It's someone else's. Their ownership wasn't protected. It is not derivative.

I'm stunned that all of the people that use Google's apps, use their mail, surf Google streams, aren't up in arms that 100% of their life content there is inside their training data.

The provenance of training data is protected conceptually, and not subject to fair use unless you consider AI derivative or a performance. In the proven cases-- it's totally NOT THAT. It's verbatim regurgitation.

Every "content producer" alive whose work could be sucked into the vacuum of a training model has been similarly ripped off.

The basis of OpenAI -- and other models -- has "dirty hands", the result of wholesale content digestion.

There are few countries that still require it, certainly not the US.

But there are those that care. Empirical statements speak of hubris and privilege, and when not factual, are boorish.

No, you and others you know don't care.

Thousands of others use it every day in the US, if for habit and grins.

You have a good policy and habit.

What I see as the problem is unpredictable circumstances. Take for example black ice, animals at night. vehicles of any kind losing control.

No amount of GPUs fed by LIDAR can recover in the way humans do. When cars have additional federated communications, inter-vehicle, the communications will have to be monitored, too, increasing complexity. Will someone/thing jam them? Will inter-vehicle communications be mandated? What's the format?

In an accident, what can be proven at a reasonable cost? What are the forensics? Will a vehicle refuse to travel if passengers are unbuckled from their seat belts?

What of the privacy implications inherent when you tap your credit device? Can you just go to the store? Will there be surge pricing?

There are many real and practical questions that should be answered first-- not after costly litigation all the way to the highest courts of the land.

tl;dr: autonomous vehicles aren't ready, aren't trained, and will prove to be a nightmare, only making the lawyers rich.

Where trained on the spew of the Internet, it's not surprising that serious boundaries have to be applied.

But the principle is well-known. Garbage-in, Garbage-out.