Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:I love this (Score 1) 73

You will need to fix the tax code and CAFE for that. They will continue buying F350s as long as they can write them off on their taxes.

Isn't interesting to ponder what the market would look like if tax policy encouraged them buying efficient vehicles instead of encouraging them to buy the least efficient and most dangerous ones?

Comment Re:Pony up (Score 1) 73

And in the bigger competitive picture, you don't have to choose between a cheap car that's missing basic features, and an expensive car that has modern features. You can get a cheap car that ALSO has basic modern features like power windows, as long as you buy from a capable, modern car company i.e. a Chinese company.

This is the same dynamic that happened in the 1980s with Japanese cars and the 90s'/00s with Korean cars...American companies loved to lock basic features like power locks, power windows, and then-advanced "climate control" behind expensive trim paywalls. The other companies realized that power locks cost a $5 solenoid and some wiring, and power windows are actually cheaper than crank windows in volume, and climate control consists of a $0.50 thermistor in the rearview mirror and a few lines of code, and all of it was getting cheaper by the minute because of efficiency of scale, so they could offer all these things in the cheap cars just as well, and guess what, people decided they liked driving cheap cars that had most of the key functions they wanted.

This $25,000 Slate truck is only interesting because you aren't allowed to buy competing $25,000 Chinese trucks that blow it out of the water by offering all the normal, modern car features at the same price.

Comment Re:Before someone says it (Score 1) 130

Isn't it just mighty convenient that our press and leaders are working hard to keep the evidence from being released. I wonder why that is.

But you can google pretty much any name, and there's an Epstein connection, if not good ol' island visits. And you can google pretty much any name, and find them not pushing for the release of the files, if not outright working to shut down the conversation.

In this kind of a situation, I consider everyone not actively pushing for the release guilty until proven otherwise. Guilty if not of outright rape and cannibalism, then enablement, obstruction of justice, and criminal negligence. The whole lot needs to be locked up forever, and our halls of power cleansed of the slime with industrial grade disinfectant.

Submission + - When AI Becomes Judge, Jury, and Appeals Court (medium.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A Medium article explores the growing use of AI for account enforcement and moderation decisions on large social platforms. The author argues that the real issue isn't AI making mistakes—mistakes are inevitable—but the lack of meaningful human review when those mistakes occur.

The article describes an account suspension process in which an AI system made the initial enforcement decision, an automated appeal upheld it, and human support representatives were reportedly unable to revisit the case because it had already been marked as resolved.

The broader question raised is one of governance rather than technology: if platforms increasingly rely on AI to make decisions that can revoke access to social networks, communications, communities, purchased hardware ecosystems, and digital identities, what level of human oversight should be required?

The article also discusses the concept of "blast radius" in system design, arguing that centralized digital identity systems amplify the consequences of false positives when enforcement actions cascade across multiple services.

What level of human review should be required when AI systems are empowered to make decisions with significant real-world consequences?

Comment Re:Before someone says it (Score 1) 130

there would be a huge stink if they tried to block the major real news outlets

Depends on what you consider "block". For practical purposes, this is a done deal for quite some years now. For the amount of stink it created, look e.g. into how The Guardian was made to destroy their hard drives that had the Snowden files on them. No real stink came of it, but The Guardian was broken, and never stood up for principles again. In a similar vein during the last dozen years or so all of the mainstream media has been reworked, and now only parrots govt line without question.

These days you can have either have major news, or real news. Major news fall in line with govt, because otherwise they meet the soft power of losing first hand access to govt news, and the hard power of the weight of the state apparatus. And that is before you get into the problematic of media moguls like Murdoch maintaining their business empires, which depend heavily on good relations with the govt. The same has happened with new media like Goole, Facebook and so on, everyone's in bed with the govt now.

For a measure of how our media is functioning, check out the reporting, or lack thereof, on Gaza, and Epstein. That basically all of the Western governments are supplying the weapons for a genocide, and covering for it in the public... That basically all of the people in the Western governments turned out to be raping minors and eating children... These things are not only objectively horrible, and pretty much the worst things human beings can do. They also make a mockery of all of the "Western values" that we have been endlessly lectured on by our governments. This is a complete collapse of any moral authority we might have had, of any pretense of us being the good guys, and the destruction of the cornerstones of the postwar Western world we built. UK is now jailing people off the streets for protesting against the genocide now, and they're not alone. We are debanking independent journalists, ICC judges, and their families now, turning them into nonpersons... Where is the major real news here? They're cheering on.

Comment Re:Not a good idea (Score 1) 130

You are not suggesting regulation for consumer safety. You are prescribing how these companies must run. The closest analog to what you suggest we have is utility regulations. I think your approach is not workable, bureaucracy regulating is too slow, too easy to capture to be effective. I think assigning liability for specific adverse events (e.g., social media addiction, etc.) and let companies run themselves is the only way to do this.

Comment Re:Not a good idea (Score 1) 130

A social media platform should be forced to operate as follows:

If a social media can be forced to operate in one way, then it can be forced to operate in any way. That is, if you get to dictate, then you only get to dictate while in power, and someone else will come into power and dictate something else.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing makes a person more productive than the last minute.

Working...