How many times are you going to trot out that stupid argument?
It's like:
People are protesting the high price of life saving insulin, yet they still use the product from big pharma... interesting.
or calling someone who buys an epipen but doesn't like big pharma a hypocrite.

The argument iagainst big pharma sn't that medicine doesn't work.

Here's an actual citation https://www.reuters.com/busine... (I couldn't find VWs numbers, but I only Googled for 5 mins).
Your number of 180,000km is higher than the most pesimistic ones I found.

The numbers along the sadder end of the scale are under the understanding that the electricity powering the vehicles is also generated from coal, but even then still produce less emissions than petrol cars. The hope is that electricity generation becomes cleaner, and EVs take advantage of that, and places that already have an abundance of green engery like Norway are estimated to be greener by 13.5ks

With all that said, I don't think your general point is wrong.

If every new car was EV, that doesn't give me too much hope for tackling pollution of transportation. I'm a big fan of just replacing cars with public transport as much as possible. A dirty petrol bus will generally pollute a lot less than 20 of your most efficient cars. (and that's a bigger problem of city planning, attitudes, etc).

A little extra = prohibitavely expensive for any 3rd party app to continue existing (costing more for them in one year than their apps have made over their lifetime).

these social justice warriors = everyone across politcal spectrums is protesting this.

I don't recall any blackouts when censorship was/continues to happen = Very few people missed the presence of hate speech, graphic videos of people dying, etc. Not saying they got the balance perfect because that's impossible, but they still need to be a place where people want to go.

You = Something's happening - better blame something on SJWs.

This comment made me smile, thanks.

> For an obvious and common example of how this could go wrong, assume that all of the metadata above gets reported as part of the device's logs, and periodically gets backed up to iCloud. In that scenario, someone's soon-to-be-ex-wife could potentially send a subpoena to Apple...

Do recall Apple vs the FBI case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
This sounds like the kind of end to end data that would remain encrypted but I can't guarentee that. No doubt there will be more details as it works its way into the betas.

> Additionally, the article says nothing about whether this is opt-in or opt-out
That one doesn't but others do (and say it's opt-in), no doubt when you update to iOS17 it'll ask if you want to enable it. No mention of if it detects when the functionality is turned off as I doubt that makes much sense.

> Or worse, it could become a game, where underage predators send wrong number sexts to random people
You know, that strategy would work perfectly fine right now without this feature. Send a lot of nudes that appear to be from wrong numbers to people's phones and that could get people in trouble. The difference is, with this way people who don't want to see the pictures wont see them.

I'll keep an eye out on the details of this as they are revealed, and I appreciate you're not just yelling "Apple = LIES" and that you read the attached article.
There's a kind of cynicism on Slashdot that goes past healthy to conspiracy theory. Right now, your comment is the only one I see that gets close to being something worth reading compared to what everybody else has posted - the rest being a circle jerk of not reading the article, and the top two comments being effectively "can it filter in only atttractive people" and "can it filter out religion" (being moderated as interesting or informative as if either of those things was something that a not-completely insane company would do).
I think I just come back to this site to get angry.

Where's the censorship? This is an opt-in that lets you continue to view the picture if you'd like.

https://mobilesyrup.com/2023/0...

"Beyond the changes, Communication Safety will continue to work as it currently does. It’s an opt-in feature in Apple’s Family Sharing system"

Well there's the time Apple stood up to the FBI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

The secure enclave has been hacked away at a bit, but no one has ever found any data being sent to the enclave that could be reverse engineered into a finger-print or face data.

> There's billion dollars worth of evidence they're as bad as Google or any other ad company
Look at their revenue breakdown, granted they do make a whopping $4 billion on advertising - compare that to Google (which gets 80% of its overall income from adverts) at $223 billion from ad revenue.

Also remember Apple's new change to privacy measures that got advertisers (and Facebook especially) upset. Now that's just Apple protecting you from 3rd parties and not from Apple, but it at least stops a lot of data leaking to 3rd parties
https://www.theverge.com/2021/...

I don't think Apple is some amazing white knight fighting for privacy, they worked out it was a way to distinguish themselves from Google and went with it.
I know it's a bit of a pick your poison these days, but if privacy is your number one concern - saying they're as bad as Google seems to be missing a lot.

I don't want to be too general about the Slashdot demographic, but I doubt many of you are women or children who get harassed with dick picks (the target for this feature).

> Re privacy
https://www.apple.com/newsroom...
Sensitive Content Warning, helps adult users avoid seeing unwanted nude images and videos. As with Communication Safety, all image and video processing for Sensitive Content Warning occurs on-device, so Apple does not get access to the content.

> Re "why don't they ban (insert thing I don't like) and other scams"
Generally you can see a few words of an article/passage you don't like and skip it, after someone has sent you a pic of their dong you've generally seen it in an instant.

> But I want to see my solicited nudes.
Find then don't enable the feature, or if you do get a nude, press the button that lets you see the pic.

Anyone remember a time when Slashdot comment section had interesting and informed takes on technology?

By turning the feature off, or saying "continue to picture" if you left the feature on?

> Where does it say that after flagging something it doesn't send a copy to Apple?

In Apple's own release
https://www.apple.com/newsroom...

>> Privacy updates include the expansion of Communication Safety beyond Messages to help keep kids safe when sending and receiving content via AirDrop, Contact Posters, a FaceTime message, and when using the Photos picker to choose content to send. It also expands to cover video content in addition to still images. A new feature, Sensitive Content Warning, helps adult users avoid seeing unwanted nude images and videos. As with Communication Safety, all image and video processing for Sensitive Content Warning occurs on-device, so Apple does not get access to the content.

Noted they didn't make the distinction of before or after it gets flagged, but them saying "Apple does not get access to the content" seems pretty blanket.

Apple's sin isn't generally lying and going through all your data. It's charging a lot of money, cracking down on repair shops, etc.

Yeah, be cautious, but also actually research and save being a cynic when that's what the data suggests, as opposed to the guy I was responding to who basically took a shortcut of "Today Apple anounces" "LIES!".

"Announced during the WWDC event on Monday, the protections will arrive with iOS 17 later this year with all image and video processing happening right on the device itself to ensure everything is kept private, even from Apple."

-- https://www.theverge.com/2023/...

You know, it's occasionally worth reading before rushing to make the most cynical comment (which may or may not have a connection to reality) you can think of.

This topic has come up quite a few times in Slashdot, and the argument against no-fines mostly comes down to ideology and doesn't touch on the points of the article.

99.99% of people don't go to the library to steal 2 books and then never return. When there's fines for late returns, people who are going to incur those fines often find their best option to never interact with the library again. Thus the fine is the catalyst for permanent non-return, hurting both the library with missing inventory and the borrower by making the library off limits.
People who find a library fine too much to pay are the ones that need the libraries the most.

There can be conversations about personal responsibility, and philosophy and anything you like - but alternatively there can be conversations about the data, keeping people more engaged with learning, and understanding the kind of person that engages with a library in the first place.

> I want to see the data.

> Well here IS the data.

> There's no point in reading the data, because people wont care about their opinion.

Is this where we are now?

I wonder if whoever wrote this:

>> It's not really clear that regulators have any interest in cracking down on charging dumb people extra for something they already owned and paid for. After all, ripping off gullible consumers is effectively now considered little more than creative marketing by a notable segment of government "leaders"

ever bought a CPU clocked higher than the absolute base level.

The consumers in this scenario aren't gullible or dumb - they're not being fooled, they are being offered something they want and paying for it.
It's a stupid system, and those kind of customers do feed it, but this is just a self-superior ego-tistical nerd take on events.