> Tesla's website says there will be three trims: Performance, Thrust, and Rocket. The Performance requires a $50,000 deposit. The Thrust, the one needed to hit the supposed sub-1-second 0-60 time, costs $250,000. The Rocket â" the one that can fly â" is a single-seat version of the car and is "Invite Only".

The Roadster is a "Halo Car" for the Tesla Brand and the Rocket Trim level is a Halo Trim of the Halo Car.

The purpose of the Rocket and the lower two trims of the Roadster are meant cast the entire brand as aspirational - that's what a Halo Car does, and nearly all the Automakers have brought out a Halo Car at various times, models like the Dodge Viper, The Ford GT, the Lexus LFA, the Ferrari F40 and so on. Expensive, Rare, often with major downsides, but they make people dream of owning one, and wind up on posters on bedroom walls.

There are all sorts of issues, regulatory and otherwise, with the Rocket Trim that get in the way of letting them out on regular roads (or even near them), and I am not sure that version ever will be. But it's not the first - right now brands like Ferrari and McClaren have special models which are not street legal, and considered "for track use only". And that's ok, because there are a number of people who are fine with that and do manage to get those cars out on the track.

I suspect there will be similar restrictions and limited areas where the Rocket version can be "driven" err.. "Flown", but there are going to be people who can not only afford it but want the unique thrill and novel experience it will provide. The Thrust Trim will likely be restricted to track use due to the rocket boost, leaving the Performance version the one you might actually encounter on the highway or more likely see parked in front some expensive restaurant. And when people see it, some will point and say "look, there's the car that can fly!"

Yes, and I think Cloudflare was likely on that point. At least, I would have been.

They are right to take the approach they are doing. First stop is education and challenging the orders. Educate the politicians and the courts on both the technology and the reasons behind the way the technology operates. Fight it in the courts because that's the right thing to do, even if bad actors want the harm and also technically illiterate folks don't understand the harm, the moral grounds need the fight to be fought.

ONLY after that fails, absolute simple, blind, malicious compliance. If France refuses to listen to the technologists and wants the ban, that's fine, roughly 25% of the global websites will be blackholed in France, and sites that rely on those will also shut down. Any and all requests get met by a redirect to the French court order. When the politicians and the courts demand the impossible and want to nuke themselves to the online dark ages despite people telling them they're making a mistake, so be it.

Who decides what's true and what's false? Who gets to hold who "accountable", and what does that look like? How does that look any different than punishing someone for speech you don't like?

Some of y'all need more than a surface understanding of the 1st amendment, with a focus on how it came about in the first place.

And here we have the groundwork being laid for censorship, all in the name of the "greater good".

I hope everyone remembers; whatever tools you give "Your Side" will be used against you.

Paying the publishers, not the authors. Whoever actually wrote it, researched it, invented it, or created it still gets squat.

Did anyone ask for this? Or will this be yet another AI product shoved down the throats of people that don't want it?

Well that's a different, and entirely solvable, problem.

Hoist the colors, ye scallywag!

https://plasma-bigscreen.org/g...

Unfortunately it doesn't appear to be a drop in replacement for smart TVs, but you can get most of the way there regardless.

I don't trust any smartTV providers. LG may be the target of this story, but I'm sure all of them are guilty of this to various degrees.

"Use my product or else." - Oligarch

I mean, good for them for taking this step. Should extend it through highschool, but the root cause of the problems they're facing isn't AI, it's old fashion real-human stupidity making critical education decisions.

From TFA and quoted in the story, it wasn't the convention floor.

If caught early enough, you can make lifestyle changes which dramatically impact the course of the disease.

Of course, there's nothing stopping you from making these changes now.

Diet, exercise, get off your screens and get some sunshine is always good medical advice.

Laughs in Californian.

Yes, and the point you quoted still stands, they are a starting point.

The always relevant XKCD comic explains it well enough: those laws in that order are essential as the starting point. Different order or missing entirely is guaranteed bad. But as pointed out through all kinds of science fiction writing, there are many ways we can understand they are insufficient.

Right now I'd agree they're exactly backwards, or as the XKCD comic described, on track to become a "killbot hellscape". We need even more rules and regulations than that, but as a set of fairly obvious first steps penned 80 years ago, they're pretty blatantly an essential first draft of baseline rules that are missing today.

As technology improves, the customer experience gets worse.

It's been that way for at least 15 years, probably longer. It's the weirdest damn thing to watch; we have all this power and sophistication, but development houses can't seem to get out of their own way and make a product that doesn't A) Suck balls, and B) gets worse with each iteration.

MS is the most famous example of this, but they're hardly alone in this practice.