That's an absurd comparison, because the Internet is not a limited spectrum. Your analogy is like arguing that there should be no regulation of airline mergers, because you can always walk or drive. They're not equivalent, they don't have equivalent costs or benefits, and from a legal perspective, they're not even the same market, or at least not meaningfully so.
TV was roughly 6 over the air channels and it was regulated monopoly - now its dying and thanks to the internet everyone has infinite channels. Today this rule would be like saying "California, you can't have Netflix because Netflix already reaches 39% of American's, you have to purchase Prime Video instead."
Not at all. TV is still a finite spectrum. There will never be any more over-the-air TV channels than there are now, realistically speaking. Not everyone has high-speed Internet. 7% can't get it at all, at least by the FCC's definition.
Another 16% use their cell phones for Internet, which means their data is likely metered. This number balloons all the way up to 34% when you look at low-income Americans.
Those folks don't have access to "infinite channels".
You're right that over-the-air TV is dying because of competition, but it's also the only remaining lifeline for the poorest Americans. And that's exactly why the Republicans want more control. They've made manipulating poor people with below-average education into an art form, and being able to get more stations in more markets owned by large right-wing conglomerates means more people who can be easily manipulated.
That's why, believe it or not, right now, in the dying days of TV, those rules are more important than ever.
There's no evidence that consolidation will reduce cost of operation enough to be meaningful, but there is evidence that consolidation results in fewer voices reaching the poorest and often least-educated Americans. And this is unquestionably a bad thing.
It looks like it's equivalent to the emissions tests that most American drivers have to do once every year or two
Emissions test?
Never had one of those...I would guess that's a California thing mostly?
But I've been in some states with a brake tag inspection...which is nothing, you roll in , turn on lights and wipers and you're good.
So, do they not let you mod your cars over in Europe? Flash new ECUs or aggressive cams, high flow exhausts, etc?
Are you sure you actually own your car over there if you can't play with it?
About a year or so ago, had cancer surgery, over $100K bill...cost me about $3K and done...after that, every other visit and procedure, I paid for office visits $25 and that was it...everything else major covered.
You can do that in the USA too, but it costs extra.
Yep I was going to say mostly the same thing.....the car on the LOT, is one I can haggle over and get the best price.
I can't haggle on a made to order car.
And these days, for the most part...there aren't THAT many things you can order custom...I find few options on many cars, like Mazdas, etc....but in general I find a car on a lot that is the color and has most all options offered that I want I go to haggle and hopefully drive off with it that or the next day....
Why a republican? There's literally no difference between parties at this point.
There's a BIG difference between what it appears is taking over the Democrat party, the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America)...aka US Communists....and the Republicans, and even the traditional Democrats.
It isn't so much they are "progressive"...looking at their platform they are mostly communists AND are actively wanting to burn down the US and how it is run and put together by our forefathers and the Constitution, etc.
I don't know if this Kansas candidate is one of them.....but right now, there is definitely a BIG difference in how much of the Dem party is rolling....
Oh sidenote: If I disconnect the TSCM module from my car it will fail the next roadworthy test. In most of Europe a functioning SOS system is mandatory and checked during roadworthy test as part of the e-Call directive
What exactly is a "roadworthy test"?
Not familiar with those...a European thing?
The radio always switching on at startup is a real bugbear of mine in my mazda too. I just don't understand why they do it , it would be so easy for the system to remember the state at shutdown and leave it there , but no, switch on each feckin time. FFS
My Mazda remembers the state it was last in upon restart of the car......
Not sure why yours doesn't...?
You won't buy a car that shows you ads, but you would ride a bus that shows you ads.
Err...I have a CAR...why the fuck would I ride a bus with a bunch of smelly bums?
Not in europe, they come free with the car plus they trigger in a serious accident where you might be unconcious when phoning the emergency yourself isn't an option.
My phone and watch have this built into them already....yours don't over there?
If you're in an upsidedown car and unconscious, it's nice to wake up in a hospital because your car automatically called 112 for you.
Don't you folks have smart phones and smart watches there?
I mean,, my iPhone and Apple Watch Ultra both have fall/crash detections and will call if activated and I don't respond that I'm ok.
I had this happen last year just walking and I tripped and fell and hit the ground somewhat solidly....nowhere near the force of an accident tho...
But my watch went off on fall mode detection and countdown started prompting me to acknowledge if I was ok, otherwise it was calling 911 and also notifying my emergency contacts.....
I had left my phone at home just walking the dog...but the watch sure caught it.
I thought pretty much all smart phones and smart watches had this capability by now?
Thank god europe is a whole different world to the US where you don't have to get out a credit card before someone hauls you into an ambulance.
Thank God that's not the case in the US either.....
Unfortunately doing that will also break the built in breakdown/emergency services auto call system if you have a crash not to mention you won't get any further software updates.
Well, thankfully...I've yet to have to buy and live with a car like this, with connected all the time, updates, etc.
I can tell you confidently, I've not missed it.
That being said, pretty much everyone these days, buying a car at this level, already has auto crash/fall detectors in our PHONES and smart watches.
And for the life of me...it's a fucking CAR why would I need software updates?
If I want to flash a ECU I'll do it myself. And if it was something that had to be done, I'm 99% sure I could drive it into the dealership and they could hook up a USB somewhere and upload any emergency fixes?
I do not want a connected car...ever.
This. Also the car you test drive won't be the one you buy unless you're trying to buy a used demonstrator.
Err....I've never heard of such a thing.
Granted I've never bought a BMW, but I've had plenty of sports cars in my life and every time I bought a new one..the car I test drove WAS the car I purchased.
I mean, isn't that the point of test drive....to see if THIS is the car that suits you?
I agree that he was making empirical claims as though they were first-principle claims, and ignoring the fact that cameras are better optical sensors than the human eye,
Not necessarily. Pretty sure the older HW3 sensors from Tesla had considerably less instantaneous dynamic range than the human eye — probably not enough to be a problem most of the time, but still...
But more than that, cameras are notably worse than eyes, because they're in the wrong spot. A pair of eyes three feet back from the window sees the scene and focuses through whatever is hitting the glass, so unless it's a deluge, the contents of the glass are largely out of focus. With small sensors mounted close to the glass, you don't have the depth of field helping you in the same way. With cameras outside the car, it's even worse, and they get blinded constantly.
What cameras do have is quantity. Your eyes can look in only one direction at a time. Cameras can look in every direction. They can see that something is coming at you from the side or behind. They can see around corners better, if placed correctly. They can judge distance and speed of oncoming vehicles with mathematical precision that human brains can't consistently match.
They also don't get tired. They don't get drunk. They don't get distracted. They don't start burning when sweat gets in them. And so on.
These things can make camera-based cars considerably safer than human drivers, at least in theory, particularly once you consider that the average contains drunk drivers, tired drivers, distracted drivers, etc. And most driving accidents are not caused by loss of visibility, statistically speaking.
Hold on to the root.
