Flock cameras are not mere ALPRs. They can track you based on the make and model of your car, combined with other identifying marks such as bumper stickers, dents and scratches, etc... And their database is searchable via "AI", and can be used to keep track of your movements across the entire network of Flock-surveiled areas.

Flock pretends they're merely ALPRs when engaging with the public, in order to weaken the argument against them, but on their website and during their sales pitches they boast about these capabilities. Or at least, they did a while ago; haven't checked their website in a while now.

Spanish, not French. In French, it would be "vive", not "viva". Unless that was part of the joke.

Wake me up when they crack down on low quality ads, malicous ads, the sex bots, crypto bots and scam bots in the YouTube comment section, and the content farms flooding their platform with low quality AI-narrated videos.

This! In always forget the exact number, but you're right: an amount of the largest cargo ships that's countable on your fingers and toes at most (6? 16? Less than 20, in any case) produce as much pollution as every single car in the world. And what are we doing? Regulating cars in rich countries. We must all buy a BEV now. Our old car will get sold to Africa or wherever, where they somehow magically stop polluting, one presumes.

Yet every time I point this out, this little fact gets ignored. Or worse, someone will pipe up with some reason why it's not possible to convert those ships to something cleaner. Yet, I ask you: what seems easier? Converting every single car on the entire planet to BEV, installing sufficient chargers to keep them all topped up, and beefing up the infrastructure (power grid) to handle the extra load, or... Converting 20 large cargo ships?

Don't get me wrong. I would love for a future where a BEV or similar zero-emissions vehicle would be practical. There is something to be said for reducing pollution in urban areas. We'd all love cleaner air. But right now they're too expensive compared to ICE cars (which often are already overpriced themselves), the range isn't there, charging takes too long, electricity prices are being kept artificially high because otherwise green energy production wouldn't be profitable, ... These cars have the cards stacked against them. They can't win on merit alone, which is why governments need to push adoption. Because very few people woke up this morning thinking "gee, if only there was a way I could spend more on personal transportation to get a worse experience than In had before!".

So modern SUVs are selling 15% more than the year before, resulting in a 10% increase in CO2 emissions specifically within the SUV segment. Sounds plausible. From this I conclude that modern SUVs are cleaner than the old ones they replace by a significant margin. Otherwise a 15% sales increase would result in a 15% emissions increase, not 10%. Well, assuming all else remains equal, such as kilometers driven.

Yet somehow this results in a 20% increase in global emissions? That is over all sources of CO2 emissions, of which transportation is just a fraction, road transportation in turn being a fraction of that, and SUVs, again, being a fraction of that.

So, a fraction of a fraction of a fraction increases by 10%, yet somehow this causes the whole to increase by 20%? What? Ever heard of Amdahl's Law? Or just plain common sense?

Someone doesn't understand how math works, but desperately wants us to believe "da numbahs aww bààààd!". That someone isn't worth our time. Let that someone come back and present their arguments when they've replaced their activism with factivism.

While China itself (meaning the government) is innocent despite being proven guilty. :')

Working with a smaller talent pool is only an issue if you don't manage to fill your positions. Since most companies seem to manage just fine, the problem is hypothetical at best.

Not saying there aren't any benefits to the company of having larger talent pools at their disposal. But it's not stopping them from filling their positions and turning a profit, so it's not a problem.

First of all, dispel that silly notion of "solving this problem for the company". The company is not the one who has a problem with lack of diversity. The company couldn't care less. If there is indeed a lack of diversity at the company, it certainly never stopped them from turning a profit so far. Which in the end is the only thing a company cares about.

The ones who seem to have a problem with it are these young people themselves, apparently. So they complain about it. Which is indeed their good right: if you don't bring up the issue, odds of it ever getting resolved are slim at best. And who can begrudge the younger generation from wanting a future that better caters to their sensibilities? After all, they'll get to live in the future a lot longer than us, the older generation.

But anyway, they complain... And then they are given a chance to actually help tackle the issue, to put their money where their mouths are. At which point they politely decline their chance to "be the change they want to see in the world", opting to contribute to the status-quo instead. And then they have the nerve to complain some more that the change (which they claim to desperately want, while simultaneously opposing it by their actions) hasn't happened yet.

Also, notice that I'm not talking about any of the clearly not-done stuff mentioned in the article, but limit my commentary specifically to:

or observing a noticeable lack of diversity when they interacted with company representatives during the interview process

So in essence:
- Hey, girl, wanna come work for us?
- But... There are no other girls here? How can I work in an environment with no other girls! This is bad, this environment needs more girls or I'm not joining!

...totally oblivious of the obvious contradiction...

Is it so strange to expect people to not actively contribute to the problem if they want to exercise their right to complain about it?

I follow your reasoning. But in that case, I would pose that they are part of the problem.

And since you're partially responsible for maintaining the problem, well... You may only complain about the water tasting funny if you're not one of the idiots that keeps pissing in the well.

The results reveal that many young women, whom the tech industry is counting on to diversify its heavily male workforce

or observing a noticeable lack of diversity when they interacted with company representatives during the interview process

So, you go in to help solve the problem of too little diversity, and before you even start to contribute you're already offended that it hasn't been solved already. We're not going to solve the problem by going into STEM, we're going to study "gender studies" instead, and then complain that so few girls choose for a career in STEM... Yeah, I thought I recognised the tune from somewhere.

Looks like we have until 2022 to launch a drone swarm against the Pentagon. ;)

It's even worse for those of us who consume their news through the RSS feed. Every time a typo in a title or body gets corrected, that's a new entry in the feed. And they don't just update the article once, oh no no no! Every typo needs to be discovered independently of the others and warrants its own separate update. I see some articles fly by at least 5 times before the so-called "editors" decide it's finally good enough not to bother anymore, or too old for their readership to still give a fuck.

I can understand the occasional typo slipping through the cracks, but for fuck's sake, would it kill you to at least proofread it once before you hit "publish"?

No idea what this "this" was supposed to show, because you didn't bother describing the link, and the video is down now. When will people on forums learn to describe what they link to so that others who stumble upon it years (or in this particular case, days) from now at least can follow along?

I think he was referring to this:

I caught him cheating on his wife based on computer forensics I did for her and some network traffic tapped on their network at her behest.

Although without further explaining the situation surrounding these "computer forensics I did for her" and "some network traffic tapped at her behest", it's hard to tell. If she's the customer and pays the bills for the network services you provide her, it's probably OK. Not sure if the users need to be warned that their traffic can be analysed though, as I'm not a legal expert. But I wouldn't be surprised to find that there's a legal obligation of notification, similar to legislation surrounding security cameras.

Nope, just new. My data is accurate, but only goes back to mid December. The way the site works is it participates in torrents on public trackers to get a list of peers. How else did you think they were able to access that data? And it appears they haven't been in business for very long, and aren't participating in all torrents yet.

But if you think this is cause for alarm: it's what copyright holders were already doing for a long time. They don't know anything about you that the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/... don't already know.