Exactly. It's an open invitation by the wearer to have violence done to them. People don't like cameras pointed in their faces without consent. Some countries might legally allow a person to be filmed but they're still going to be provoked. Other countries have an expectation of privacy built into law where consent is absolutely necessary to film them except in an incidental or narrowly defined basis.

It probably isn't a great way at all since you only have an approximate sense of what you're filming and have to crank your head in the direction you want to record which may not be practical with glasses perched on your face. Anyone interested in doing this would be better off just using a Gopro or a phone and holding it or putting it on a stand.

You can piggy back on the civilian infrastructure without ever exposing devices - just require all devices to access anything beyond the local network via a specific router, which pushes all traffic over a VPN, and nothing goes out over the naked internet as its all dropped if its not going over the VPN. Then all you need to ensure are thoroughly audted and hardened are those routers - everything else cant hit the internet.

I see what he's saying and it's obvious. Cameras working off visible light have similar limitations as humans - conditions like snow, fog, rain, sun, shade, dark, reflections etc. all impact on what the car can see and compromises its safety. So why not use invisible light - infrared, or other radio waves like radar to penetrate further and identify hazards sooner?

This is obvious stuff and its demonstrable. Mark Rober did a series of tests on YouTube proving this exact point pitting a Tesla against a Lidar equipped car in various conditions and observing if they would crash into a wall of boxes. The Tesla failed miserably. The Tesla also disengaged autopilot a split second before collision which people speculate is so the company can pretend the driver was in control and caused the crash.

The only reason this debate is even happening is because Tesla likes to cut corners and pretend it is innovation - "oh we don't need radar any more because we have cameras!". It's a convenient excuse other automakers will use too if given a chance. It would require somebody like the EU to mandate autonomous vehicle safety must be by all reasonable means, and all makers expose granular safety data for this BS to be exposed.

All these companies are going the same way. Quite honestly I don't know why they bother selling a console at all. Just create an app and a controller that connects to the app. If someone has the bandwidth for digital downloads only then just stream the games.

Yes you're right, assuming social media only recommended what you followed. But obviously that is not what they do. Because views & engagement require exposing people to new content even if it is AI dogshit. So if they are going to do that, then they should provide buttons to say as much.

You're kidding I hope. LinkedIn is just a really shitty social media network and has its equivalent of blueticks where assholes and grifters can pay money to elevate their stupid opinions to the top of feeds. If there is any political slant to this crap it is to the right, but it does not follow that slop should be allowed to make things even worse.

Aggregate means a site can work out the number of views to people pushing the button and take a good guess. Especially if other content from the same channel also gets flagged. And it can be weighted against site reputation, engagement and other metrics. Being able to report slop is way overdue.

As I said "aggregate" and it can be reviewed. In addition, why is this any different than when social media offers thumbs down, or "do not recommend" or other mechanisms?

LinkedIn provides both. Anyhoo, every platform should have a button which is able to report slop, scam ads, copyright infringment and other things without the bullshit of filling out a lengthy form that will be denied. At least then there is an aggregate opinion that can be used to flag garbage content.

And if the supplier gave it on the hard drive to Netflix, then really they should have encrypted it and given a key to use the drive by some other channel like email

Netflix should at least encrypt the content so if somebody lifts the drives it's no good outside of the machine it came from. e.g. encrypted partition / files with a key protected with TPM.

Im intimately familiar with range-payload charts.

You have to take my sentence as a whole - I say that its both low density and premium heavy. The low density is because of the range-payload drop off, the premium heavy is because Qantas will make more money with the premium cabin, so thats where the bulk of the weight allowance goes.

There is no way any aircraft of that vintage would manage the trip without multiple stops. It would take 4-5 days to make the journey at best of times even before considering swathes of airspace controlled by the enemy.

The airlines reputation isnt going anywhere, DVT is a known risk on a lot of long haul currently in operation, yet you dont hear anything about airlines getting negative PR about it. This route will be no different. Its a bit longer, but not massively.

Qantas already have it set at around 40% premium seating, with around 140 economy or economy plus seating at 33 inch pitch, and 98 premium seats (first, business and premium economy).

Its a low density, premium heavy cabin precisely because thats what the route demands - they have structured it around what premium seating they can fill, and what economy they might fill. Its no secret that airlines make almost all of their passenger profit from premium seats, and economy is often just about break even, so theres no point in cramming more economy in for this route.

https://www.qantas.com/en-nz/o...