Ultimately the facial recognition software has got it wrong, so its creator should pay. Of course the cost will need to be added into the payments from the police...
The $5000 is for any false positive. The additional consequences should be charged against the police if they fail to confirm the person's identity appropriately.
If a person is misidentified by the software, then an immediate $5000 payment should be made. This will encourage the software maker to be very careful.
The Manchester, UK police claim a very low false positive rate:
GMP have had a total of 1 false confirmed from over 641,533 face
Banks go bust for two very different reasons. The first is that they are no longer making a profit on their activities and so, like any other firm, eventually their creditors will force them into bankruptcy.
The second pattern is where a bank suffers a run on its deposits so that it is no longer able to meet the demand for cash from its depositors despite the loans that it has made remaining profitable. It is this second pattern of failure, which is driven by irrational panic, that modern central banks seek to prevent by being willing to act as 'lender of last resort'. This adds stability to the crucial plumbing of the economy, because if the banks have been adequately well run then their loans' long term value should be enough to pay off the depositors.
Note that there is always a risk of panics associated with banking; they inevitable borrow short - from depositors who want immediate access to their money - to lend to creditors who want to be certain their loan won't be called in overnight. Noone has come up to a solution to this problem, but the present system of bank regulation and 'lender of last resort' does generally work well enough.
It's not mutually exclusive. They fluff each other.
and die for Bibi
lets the other side control when to turn it off. If they flake or go rogue, you are left holding the bag.
'Parents have no need to give their kids smart phones which access all that garbage and why would they.'
If you have children who have grown up recently and you resisted their getting smart phones, then you are a super hero and I am not worthy to untie your shoe laces. If you've not had to resist that pester power, then I'd encourage you to be more sympathetic.
To be clear I've not had brats...
...Like their opinion is supposed to control our democracy?
As documented here
Smartphones have matured enough there is very little incentive to upgrade.
64 camera lenses oughtta be enough for anyone!
- Phone J. Gates
> And no the bubble isn't going to pop.
It's smells more bubblier over time. Sales of AI services are not self-supporting the hardware and infrastructure needed. AI usage numbers are based on the heavily discounted services supported by investors and market-share fights. These subsidies cannot last forever. Users will be more judicious with AI use when they have to pay real prices, and the market will realize it over-built.
Investors are pricing in big breakthroughs, and if these don't arrive, the existing stacks are financially hosed.
Where's that micro-violin I loaned to a tardigrade?...
It's unproven, possibly would make the problem worse if things broke up in unexpected ways, and energy-intensive.
But DOGE banned atmospheric drag, based on an "anti-woke" keyword search.
the cockroaches of the heavens
"It might help if we ran the MBA's out of Washington." -- Admiral Grace Hopper
