Comment Re:Pretend to be a customer for a new Subaru (Score 1) 134
The question was literally, "What happens when all car manufacturers are displaying ads?"
The question was literally, "What happens when all car manufacturers are displaying ads?"
>"You do realize whenever you do login, they connect the unknown user tracking to your login"
On this machine, my main home Linux desktop, I have never logged into to ANY Google service/site at any time, ever.
The escape of medical information is truly well under way already, independent of AI.
In the UK, most medical information will be classified as sensitive personal data, which means it has significant extra protections under our regular data protection law, in addition to the medical ethics implications of breaching patient confidentiality. Letting it escape is a big deal and potentially a serious threat to the business/career of any medical professional who does it. Fortunately the days of people sending that kind of data around over insecure email are finally giving way to more appropriate methods of communication as the technology improves. It's usually governments seeing pound signs and/or businesses who aren't providing direct care to the patients that are pushing for wider distribution (and also those organisations who act as if impossible claims about sanitising the data effectively before releasing it are true).
I'm serious. I don't fucking pay for ads. Ever.
Good for you! Unfortunately, for a lot of people, having no car isn't really an option, so the answer to what happens next with your strategy is really that all of those people get an inferior product because there's no effective competition or regulation in the market to prevent that, while people like you don't get any product at all.
What should happen is that governments recognise a failure of the market to maintain adequate standards for customers and introduce regulation to enforce minimum acceptable standards accordingly. Whether that actually happens obviously depends on whether your government is more interested in looking out for the people or the businesses.
The direct fuel injection does seem to cause more trouble than it's worth.
Low tension rings cause more trouble than their worth Low viscosity oil causes more trouble than it's worth Stop-start causes more trouble than it's worth Variable displacement causes more trouble than it's worth Integral dual volute turbocharging causes more trouble than it's worth And yes, direct injection causes more trouble than it's worth.
The extreme CAFE mileage requirements have driven manufacturers to make a large number of terrible engineering choices in ICE drive trains. Extreme CAFE mileage requirements have greatly contributed to the excessive cost of vehicles and the excessive cost of repairs.
Yep. CAFE-style regulation is the wrong way to attempt to reduce carbon emissions. The right way is to impose a carbon tax, then let consumers vote with their wallets and engineers work to make the right tradeoffs to meet customer demand. My guess is that consumers would choose to buy the more fuel-efficient vehicles and engineers might make the same tradeoffs... but now it would be clear that those tradeoffs are worthwhile.
Gas is not cheap.
Gas is pretty much exactly at its long-term, inflation-adjusted average price, and right where it was in the 1950s. Since then, it was a little higher in the 70s, a little lower in the 90s, a little higher in the early 2000s, but we're now back at the long-term normal price.
See https://afdc.energy.gov/data/1...
Whether the normal price of gas is "cheap" or "expensive" depends on your income and lifestyle, I'd think.
A "much-needed move" would be to allow BYD cars to be sold here and let the free market economics (that conservatives ostensibly claim to love) sort everything out.
I'm not going to argue about the merit of allowing BYD or not. This is only about free market economics. BYD is heavily subsidized, and their entry in the market would skew any possible free market economics.
This is an appropriate place for tariffs. Not ridiculous, exclusionary tariffs like we have, but tariffs carefully calibrated to offset the subsidies as precisely as possible, putting BYD's cars on a level playing field against US EVs. I have great faith in free market capitalism and dislike anything that distorts the market, but sometimes you need to use regulation to correct for external market distortions.
There's pretty much zero probability Russia could use this to their advantage at this point - their space R&D engineering is pretty much gone. They don't even have a functioning launch platform for human flight at the moment.
The real risk is this being sold to China, or traded to China by Russia for hardware for their war machine against Ukraine.
>"giving users personalized cards that showcase their top channels, interests, and a personality type based on their watch habits."
There are reasons I have never logged into YouTube and watch everything as a non-user. They still learn and show related or relevant stuff, but probably just tied to a generic cookie s897fds8d7fds89sdf7sdfs9v8ds7df89a0b
I very much miss the "real" Netflix (Netflix Disc) service.
Unfortunately, my city's library system is not very good. Their collection sucks (mostly old DVD's, nothing remotely recent, and I believe nothing BluRay) and much of their "collection" is just some strange Hoola/Overdrive streaming service.
Oh, and they don't list, online, what media anything is (DVD, BlueRay, 4K), everything says "DVD" (of which I have no interest).
It's ability to hover, and fixing itself to the deck allows for a much expanded launch envelope.
How so? I don't see how hovering makes any difference at all... it's just a waste of fuel, increasing gravity loss. It's nicer from a controllability standpoint, but SpaceX has clearly perfected the hoverslam maneuver and once you have that down it makes more sense than to waste fuel hovering and translating. Bolting itself into the deck helps with rough seas, I suppose, but it seems unlikely you'd want to try landing in very rough conditions anyway.
Spacex doesn't seem to care for doing this all that often any more.
Nah. They do it when it makes sense. They don't do it for Starlink launches because it's cheaper to launch a slightly lighter load and shorten turnaround time, to avoid waiting for the droneship to ferry the rocket back to land. Plus their launch cadence is so high that they'd need a big fleet of droneships. So they reserve those for paying customers who need the greater capacity. I don't think anything about New Glenn's capabilities changes those calculations.
The AI is significantly more aware of other cars around it. Unlike a human, the self-driving system has continuous 360-degree visibility.
While I agree that it *should* always be safe to hit the brakes, the truth is that when you're driving on busy roads most of the time it's not safe to brake hard. People follow too close more often than they maintain proper separation.
I also agree that drivers should always have sufficient situational awareness to know whether or not it's safe to brake, they often don't, and they often react without considering the consequences. This isn't a "man vs woman" thing, it's a human thing.
As usual with self-inflicted problems.
AFAICT, people with ink generally have more kids than those who don't.
it is a royal BITCH to try and remove them
It's worth noting that the way you remove them is by making them stop just sitting there, to the degree they do. The various approaches ultimately just try to break the ink up into smaller pieces that can be absorbed into the bloodstream and carried throughout the body... hopefully to get filtered out by the kidneys and liver and then excreted, but who knows? It seems likely to me that tattoo removal may create exactly the same effects as tattoo application, but moreso.
I mean, let's just come up with a hypothetical example. Let's say that baby formula manufacturers realize that the specific tests used by the regulator to check for protein can be fooled by melamine and so they use melamine as an ingredient to save money while fooling the regulator. Consequently hundreds of thousands of babies get sick and tens of thousands are hospitalized with some dying, and that's just the ones that are known about. Should the regulators be the only ones that get in trouble while the executives who made the decisions buy themselves some private islands? I mean, A. that's not a hypothetical example and, B. I just do not understand what you are trying to argue here. Maybe it's my fault, but it just seems incomprehensible to me given the actual, real-world history of corporate behavior when it comes to food and drug safety.
I presume you're referring to the 2008 Chinese Milk Scandal? I'll point out this was something perpetrated by the Chinese industry, not American. It was knowingly covered up with the complicity of the Chinese government to prevent it from embarrassing the ongoing Olympics. Only when the scandal became impossible to cover up did the CCP take any action.
As of December 2025, San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie and former Mayor London Breed have both expressed praise for China and the relationship between San Francisco and Chinese cities.
I program, therefore I am.