The good should not be an excuse to introduce a bunch of bad, even if the good still outweighs it. The bad should be rigorously minimized. I am not against such cameras, under certain conditions:
1) Strict limitations on what they can be used for. That also sets limits on data retention and on who has access to it (absolutely no 3rd parties)
2) Audits and oversight of how the system is being used, with real consequences for violations. The benefits of each use case to be evaluated from time to time, insufficient benefit or too much opportunity for abuse means the system will no longer be used for that particular use case.
3) Ironclad security to ensure none of this data ever gets out.
And 0) Those limitations on use should be tested against a more fundamental set of (ethical) rules, to ensure that the use is not expanded from "protect the children" to "auto-fine jaywalkers".

Only problem is that I wouldn't trust most governments to get any of these points right.

"Needs more Excel training" should not be the answer to any problem.

If he is an American citizen, he is not compelled to give up his passcode.

The Fifth Amendment starts with "No person ..." not "No citizen ..."

Would he have handed over the phone unasked and volunteered the password? Unlikely.
As far as I know, the phone behaves in a certain way when you enter the duress password. So it seems established that that is the password he provided. And at that point, it doesn’t matter if he wiped the phone earlier or not, that fact can no longer be established, and that alone would count under the (expanded interpretation of) that law.
Yes, we make assumptions. We’re not in court, we’re on the internet. Speculating on whether the state does or does not have a solid case. That is all.

If they never got into the phone, how do they know there was evidence on there?
They demanded the phone, and he caused the contents on it to be unrecoverable. At that point it does not matter whether the phone did or did not contain anything incriminating, according to the article 18 U.S.C. 2232 he was charged with.

It also sounds like at the time, he wasn't under arrest? He had asked for a lawyer and had been refused?
This was at a border checkpoint, and the rules are a little different. Customs officers can search your stuff (including your phone) without a warrant, probable cause or even suspicion.

He's not under any compulsion to give a password is he?
He is not, even at the border. Refusal can lead to refused entry, though. But once he gave the duress password, he effectively caused the phone's decryption keys to be wiped, and the aforementioned article kicks in.

The real question is whether or not wiping a phone constitutes "destruction of property" as mentioned in that article of law. By the letter, it does not. But data seems to be "property" in the spirit of this law. Similar to eating a physical letter before the cops get a chance to read it. Guess this is what is about to be tested in court.

Some things about his movies are very good: the cinematography, use of practical effects over CGI, scale, and good scoring. Sometimes he does drop the ball; while the score on Interstellar was epic, the one in Odyssey was bland and did not really mesh with what was going on on-screen. And he's a bit of a one-trick pony, with a rather dark and depressing tone in most of his movies. Works in Interstellar, didn't really help the Odyssey, ruined the Dark Knight. And his convoluted way of telling a story. Tenet was a mess as a result (and the time stuff just didn't work), but it worked fine in Interstellar and the Odyssey.

Loved: Interstellar, Dunkirk, Oppenheimer
Liked: the Odyssey, Tenet
Didn't care for: his Batman movies, Inception, Memento.
Enough for me to go see a movie on the strength of him directing it.

Bernie Sanders has proposed LLMs are using the collective knowledge of humanity so the people should own 50% of each LLM company.

The problem with ownership is that you also have to absorb the losses in addition to profiting from the gains. I don't see what problem ownership solves. We already have a way to get a slice of the pie for successful corporations: corporate income tax.

That's significant, and it's not just the engines. The heat shield tiles, tanks and plumbing, the ship itself, all are receiving changes that are more than small incremental improvements: new insights from test flights are rolled into the design of the next ship. That introduces additional risk on each flight as well. And the risk that the cycle continues like this... letting perfect be the enemy of good enough.

There are three issues that the EU is concerned about when it comes to US big tech: the reliance of European citizens, companies and governments on US tech firms, and data collected in the process. The influence that those firms can exert over EU public opinion. And anti-competitive practises and the abuse of monopoly positions. The first 2 are the ones that the EU started to worry about a lot more since Trump’s second term, but they are mainly dealt with through policy. The 3rd issue has always been a priority, and that’s the one being dealt with through fines.

People expect a driver to be just that: a driver, that provides whatever is needed to make full use of the device, and nothing else. Maybe MS ought to be a little bit more like Apple, set some strict policies, and police them.

The cost of mitigation isn't that large even. Way back when, I helped build a backup for a system holding critical data that had a far greater transaction volume than the typical cadastre ever will. The system was pretty basic and cheap to build and operate, basically a daily incremental backup written on immutable media, along with a printout of each transaction. This was before ransomware was even a thing, though hacking was already a concern and part of the reason the customer wanted this system (the printout was a regulatory requirement). These guys were serious, they even wrote procedures for restoring the system from this backup, and practiced those procedures.

If you brake, that which was traveling forward wants to keep traveling forward. If anything, I'd expect the outer edges of the door to fly forward, i.e., more open.

Even if you were right, it probably would work only if the door is very open, but not ajar.

Yet traditional cab drivers don't monitor their passengers to make sure they are awake and alert and not reporting any distress the entire trip

Of course not. That's not the scenario. The scenario is waking the driver upon reaching the destination. A taxi driver could physically shake the person.

I can't currently imagine what that would be to get me to go along with the idea you have any claim against them.

Somebody, somewhere can.

The point you're missing is that they don't have to get to an emergency room since an ambulance, unlike an autonomous vehicle, has trained medical personnel on board that can start administering procedures immediately upon arrival.

Also, FYI, despite what you may think, ambulances DO have to follow the speed limit.

It varies by jurisdiction, but no, they don't. At least in California, they can legally exceed the speed limit:

(b) Speed Restriction. In no event shall an ambulance driver exceed a speed of 15 miles per hour while disobeying any official traffic control stop sign or stop signal.

So that means that while going through, say, a red light, not only can they legally go through it, but then can, at most, exceed the speed limit by 15 MPH while doing it.

While NOT "disobeying any official traffic control stop sign or stop signal," they can generally exceed the speed limit even more (but, again, it varies by jurisdiction).

Here is the relevant law for Hollywood, FL:

No ambulance shall exceed the speed of 40 miles per hour except in cases of extreme emergency.

Which means they can exceed the speed limit by 39 MPH for "non-extreme" emergencies.

In New York State:

1104 Authorized Emergency Vehicles - (b) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle may: 3. Exceed the maximum speed limits so long as he does not endanger life or property;

No specific maximum speed is mentioned.

The autonomous car would have to drive the speed limit and stop for all lights on the way to the hospital adding minutes to the trip.. minutes a passenger who is actually having a medical emergency might not have. The passenger will likely get life saving medical attention faster if the ambulance (that can legally exceed the speed limit and run red lights) travels to the car.