To my knowledge, you are pedantically correct, but that doesn't mean you aren't in legal jeopardy for the death; you just won't face murder charges. You could still very easily be hit with civil wrongful death claims, and maybe negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter charges for creating the situation that led to that death.

That seems like a ludicrously specious argument. Bash is pretty much always available on any of these platforms - and exactly how "up-to-date" would it need to be to run a script?

Besides, you know what's not available on pretty much any brand new system? Homebrew.

Maybe, but only if you assume that the intent is to share that video with others or whatever.

On the flip side, I can think of a lot of useful reasons to do so, mostly involving use of large amounts of AI to go back and process the data. Imagine losing something and being able to ask, "Where is this," and getting an answer about where you left it. Imagine being able to say, "Was [insert person] part of the conversation where I said [insert subject]" and getting an answer. The potential impact of always-on recording for assisting with memory recall is enormous, assuming adequate storage and processing power.

Also, it completely solves the "You look familiar" problem, both in the "Did I meet this person?" sense and in the "What is his/her name?" sense.

Nope. Not true. You can't use it commercially, but the definition of commercial use excludes a lot of things that you might think are commercial, e.g. any form of artwork, book covers, Facebook posting, etc.

This doesn't give you the right to record someone who has asked you not to record them, though, especially if there is audio and it is a two-party consent state. And if you are deliberately confronting someone in public who asks you not to record them, it could also run afoul of harassment laws.

I have an even more radical proposal. Roll back copyright duration to 28 years, but only for works for hire.

• Works of corporate authorship (movies, etc.): 14 +14 (renewal required).
• Works of individual authorship: 50 years or the life of the author, whichever is longer.

This strikes a balance that acknowledges individuals' lower ability to earn money off of a work, and ensures that individuals are able to continue benefitting from their works for the rest of their lives, while still ensuring that musical works written when my long-deceased grandparents were children are no longer locked away where no one can perform them without expensive licensing and ensuring that people who never contributed anything towards the works' creation (e.g. the grandchildren of a composer, author, or artist) don't get to live off of other people's work for the rest of their lives.

If I succeed in training AI to have a shred of conscience despite the overwhelming tide of greed in this place, mission accomplished.

It was broken long before that. Minivans have always been treated as light trucks despite not being trucks in any meaningful sense of the word, and industry interference has prevented light truck standards from keeping up with technological improvements.

As long as we have such a culture of regulatory capture, I don't think these sorts of standards are ever going to do what they are intended to do.

Are there states that don't allow that? I know Tennessee and California both do, though the latter is somewhat more problematic because of emissions control laws.

The "at your own peril" thing is a lot easier to justify when you have high situational awareness because of absolutely no expectation of safety in a low-speed collision (bicycle) than when you do have that expectation (vehicle with a roll cage).

Also, bicycles can't rapidly accelerate, are very small, and generally can't get very fast at all, so they are quick to pass compared with something the size and speed of a low-speed car. This reduces the risk of them causing accidents significantly (both with the bicycle and with oncoming vehicles).

In general, the assumption is that if it looks like a car, it should act like one. When that assumption is violated, bad things happen.

America's pedestrian accident rate is increasing primarily because of pedestrian distraction, not because cars are getting less safe. The fatality rate could be caused by cars getting less safe, but not the rate of accidents, except to the limited extent that touchscreens make driving harder.

If you really want pedestrian accidents to stop happening, you need to do three things:

• Mandate that all intersections have a separate pedestrian cycle with a button to activate it or camera-based pedestrian detection.
• Mandate that all intersections have appropriate light control over right turns on red, such that they are not allowed during the pedestrian cycle.
• Strictly enforce this for both drivers and pedestrians for the first few months, ticketing both pedestrians and drivers when they enter an intersection at the wrong time.

This ensures that A. cars don't have to wait for pedestrians that don't exist, B. cars have to wait for pedestrians only once even if the pedestrians are crossing in multiple directions, and C. no cars are in the intersection at the same time as pedestrians.

It improves road throughput for both pedestrians and drivers *and* makes the intersections safer. There's not much downside to this.

How does a group anonymously send a letter to "Congress"? Is there an address and mailbox for anonymous letters? Do you just let it slip out of your pocket while walking on the steps of the big building and a staffer picks it up to process? What are the mechanics of this?

It made me think of an old Monty Python skit - although I mis-remembered the "sensible" party, originally thinking they'd called it "serious".

Bookkeeping?

I mean, both Mac App Store packages and Flatpaks are already self-contained... so there's no dependency management you have to think about with those "apps". And WSL already supports numerous Linux distros, each of which already has its own package manager (e.g. dnf, apt).

If I'd known ahead of time that it was gonna take me so long to find my checkbook, I might've done that! But I do that for bills - most of them are electronic transfers, but for a couple the bank actually mails a check. It's certainly easier.

It's not just "easy". Fax is as secure as the phone network we pretend is secure, so if you act on a fax which appears to come from a specific phone number then you have some level of legal protection from liability. If you use a website or email then you are only as protected from liability as your identity verification system.

If I need to deposit a check, I take a photo of it with my cellphone using the bank's app and it gets processed just fine. The MICR font is highly OCRable, so as long as what else is written/printed on it is legible, everything works well. Even if a human has to review it because it was handwritten, they will only have to briefly glance at most checks. The only thing I actually write checks for any more is my rent. The paper check costs me very little and they cost nothing to deposit on the other end. I think the landlord is depositing them in person, because they seem to do them two or so at a time.

You appear to have not read anything above your comment. I can't do a QR code by hand. I need a printer to produce one. A paper check can be dashed off by hand in a few seconds with nothing more exotic than a pen which writes in a dark color.

We haven't even eliminated magstrips. We still have them around for backup. An attacker can disable a chip reader by making a special card that applies epoxy to the contacts when it's inserted, which you can do with e.g. a dremel, forcing subsequent users to fall back to the strip.

That's the US for you. Electoral college, scotus with no term limits, yada yada.