> AM radios in cars only cover the small intersection of people who don't already have an emergency kit containing an AM radio, but do happen to be in a working vehicle during a disaster.

I feel like the number of people with a working vehicle is much, MUCH larger than the number of people with "an emergency kit containing an AM radio."

The main point being that, if you happen to be traveling at the time in a potential emergency situation (either because bad luck or actively trying to evacuate), you can use the AM radio in the car to receive news and important information.

Just put the radio in the car where it's most likely to be used when needed.
=Smidge=

> The electronics that drive such powerful motors produce HUGE quantities of RFI

The electronics that drive such powerful motors are inside thick, cast aluminum housings, as are the motors themselves, and those two things are usually bolted directly to each other to form one massive lump. I don't think you appreciate how much RF shielding goes into all that already because, y'know, there are a lot of other electronics in the vehicle that might get fucked up by it. The $5 worth of metal" would be the shielding can around the radio itself, not the HV inverter circuitry that is already encased.

The "Electric vehicle electronics interfere with the AM radio signals" argument is complete horseshit. The AM radio in my 2020 Kona EV often works better than the FM radio for some reason. It's not an especially expensive vehicle so the cost of making it work certainly isn't a reason to not do it.
=Smidge=

I don't see this as performative bullshit, and I'm not sure anyone with a lick of sense would.

Let's say I'm a public official. I want to take bribes but I'll go to jail for that. Instead, I can mint myself a cryptocoin and people who want to bribe me can buy them, effectively giving me money in exchange for nothing. I mean that's exactly what Trump did, and there's no reason to think others won't try it if it goes unchallenged.

Whether or not it will be *effectual* as a law will come down to how it's enforced.
=Smidge=

> They already run a large web store and they could have done this anytime but it's clear they have not.

I mean, they have but whatever. The part you're not considering is the immediacy of buying at a physical location.

Browsing online has a different set of tools the merchant can use to FOMO you into buying it. If you see something online you can easily come back to it hours or days later and reconsider; if you're there in the store you're probably not very likely to come back tomorrow. If you're going to buy something at the store you're most likely going to buy it during that visit, which makes you more vulnerable to surge pricing.

> They'd be caught very quickly if they did this in a retail store.

And the consequences would be... what, exactly?

Personally I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop; sign up for WalMart Customer Plus for $19.99/mo and skip the surge pricing!
=Smidge=

There have already been improvements. The practice was banned outright, by everyone, 30 years ago.

=Smidge=

I just wanted to let you know that you have successfully driven me off of /., after some 25 years.

Not just you, obviously, the site has been in steep decline for a long time, but you were such a huge asshole that you managed to be the last straw. So, congrats for that. I won't be back.

Why would that be *critical* information?

Would the problem be worse or lessened if it was from the US? Britain? France? Japan? It is more or less a disaster if it's military weapons waste or civilian power waste?

Or are you just upset you don't get to point fingers?
=Smidge=

> whereas normally you'd have to wait for the harm to happen to sue

False. You can file a suit for any reason at any time. You do not have to wait until any harm is done. This does not, of course, mean the judge has to accept your filing.

But in this case, the 'harm' is that they are slowing down development/improvement of a product you are paying for. If you buy into a service on the promise or reasonable expectation that the vendor of that service will continue to improve it, and then they declare that they will drag their feet, that's a type of harm because you're not getting what you reasonably expected to be getting for your money.

Ultimately it's up to the judge to decide if there's enough meat on that bone to proceed to the next phase, but it's enough to get the paperwork started.
=Smidge=

So stalking is constitutional, then?

'cause it's not just "recording in public" it's full tracking and profiling. Who you are, where you are, when you're there. A full record of your daily activities from the moment you walk out your front door to the moment you get home again.

If the government was doing this directly in the same manner as these corporations do (e.g. without a warrant) it would 100% be a violation of your constitutional rights. The fact that the government does it by proxy, letting a private corporation do all the dirty work for them, really does not change the fundamental complaint here.

=Smidge=

More like 99.99%. Maybe need some more nines in there. Large C codebases without regular critical CVEs are basically nonexistent.

What bankruptcy-prevention actions are they asking for?

15-25 kWh drawn by the utility is quite a bit! I hope they're paying him well for that.

They're bringing outside scrutiny into their processes; that's going to slow them down, too.

Not "at the same time". You're conflating what AI can do now with what it will likely be able to do in a year or five, or 20.

Amodei and others are worried about what AI that doesn't yet exist may do, not about what current-generation AI can do. AI is getting better, very quickly, and unless there's some blocking obstacle that no one has been able to identify will at some point become far, far smarter than humans, individually or collectively. So before that happens, we need to figure out how to make sure that superintelligent AI wants to help us, and wants to do it in the right way.