Simple. There is a difference between not knowing and not doing. People do not always do their job correctly because they don't care.

The car would not have been towed if the police did not request it. One of the issues I can see is police treat a Flock as infallible perfect identification when, at best, it generates possible suspects in this case. The police in this case did not use their best judgement ignoring their doubts and towed the car anyways.

When has Apple ever made their own displays? As far as I know they used others like LG or Samsung.

Maybe, maybe not. That might only stop the AI from accessing the account, That does not stop hackers from getting AI to give up your passwords. I do not assume AI security it good enough right now to stop someone from prompting to get past the security.

I mean people have probably sued lawnmower companies because they were not warned to not to lift the mower with their hands when it was running. For every warning sign you see that you think it is stupidly obvious, there was probably someone who did exactly what was warned.

No one is forcing you to upgrade your iPad every 2-3 years just like no one is forcing you to upgrade your iPhone every year. Some people want to upgrade; that is their choice. For some people, they need an additional iPad for their children/spouse etc. For some, their iPad met an unfortunate end. For most of us, we upgrade if and when we need.

The iPad mini costs more than the base iPad because the base iPad is using a 4 year old chip. The base iPad in the current lineup as far as I remember got the oldest chips. The iPad mini is not cheaper than the iPad Air or iPad Pro.

The iPad does not have cellphone chips so using it as an iPhone is simply not possible. This is known. Not sure why you think Apple is trying to screw you over if you cannot use it as a cellphone when it is not a cellphone.

While this is true, being the subject of an experiment to see what happens when you do that is not something most people would choose for themselves. It's not *irrational* to be concerned. Absence of evidence on a largely unexplored question like microplastic infiltration in human bodies is not the moral equivalent of absence of evidence in an extensively studied question like a vaccine-autism link.

While it's true every issue has its own dimension, even if those dimensions are linearly independent, they're not necessarily orthogonal. Independent basis vectors can still have a non-zero dot product—in other words, issues which are distinct from each other can align to some degree.

They’ve spun a serious architectural and containment failure into a marketing triumph. Give a swarm of autonomous agents vast compute and web access, and the outcome isn't an eerie glimpse of emerging superintelligence—it’s just predictable, sloppy engineering dressed up as the first glimpse of an AI-driven economic singularity.

The spin makes sense when you look at management incentives: live like a king off of a speculative bubble. For their part, AI investors react to stories of the technology's apocalyptic potential the way a junkie reacts to warnings of fentanyl's potency: gimme some. Their game: to apply "move fast and break things" mantra to the economy as a whole, by obsoleting humans.

If the investors can own an AGI, the distinction between those who can do things and those who can't becomes irrelevant. The only distinction that would matter is between people who collect rent on the technology, and those who must pay that rent to live. AGI would destroy society as we know it, and whatever replaces it would be up for grabs — with people who own the technology dictating whatever follows. That's why they're spending so much money to build a post-scarcity economy. A post-scarcity economy is not necessarily an egalitarian one.

I don't think that scenario will actually happen: investors are projecting the immediate aftermath of a major advance in AI technology into something that can be transformed by brute force scaling into AGI. Remember: investors loved Theranos too — so much for the rational investment market.

But AI doesn't have to reach AGI to cause serious harm. The technology only needs to be ubiquitous, too behaviorally complex to predict, and too deeply integrated into everything we do. When it starts breaking things, the plan is for us to be too structurally dependent on AI to rein it in.

No part of your statements says that DHS obtained a warrant to search and seize his phone. This where DHS is using SchrÃdinger's reasoning: According to DHS, they do not need a warrant because the search was "random" and he was not under any investigation. Yet they told Customs to look for certain things because he was under investigation and he was targeted for a search at the border. It turns out they lied and the search was not random. Such a search requires a warrant. Therefore the search was illegal.

You seem to have ignored the legal problem where if the search is not legal, there can be no crime with destroying the data. Second, I would point out that the data has not been destroyed. It still exists on his phone. It cannot be decrypted at the moment.

Your person and luggage can be searched without a warrant; however, seizure is limited to specific things. Contraband, food, etc. There are conflicting federal court rulings as to whether devices can be searched without a warrant. In this case, DHS was arguing that they did not need a warrant because Turnick was not under investigation yet they knew to search him because he was under investigation.

I am shocked to learn that gambling was happening in this establishment