Is that what they're doing? It seems to me that the appropriate action is to report the event to the regulator and have them follow up.

Do you have a link to information about what police are or aren't doing?

Oh, I should have mentioned: It was a semi-automatic rifle, with a high-capacity magazine (though the magazine was an internal tube, not a replaceable box). It even had a polymer stock though it was dark brown, not black.

Heh. My dad used to keep a rifle and ammunition in his school locker. He'd carry the rifle into the school and put it in his locker every morning, and reverse the process every afternoon. Why? He hunted jackrabbits every afternoon, on his way home from school. The local farmers paid a bounty for jackrabbit ears because the rabbits ate their crops. He tried using a shotgun for a while, but the shells were a lot more expensive, so assuming sufficient skill to hit fast-moving rabbits with a rifle, it was the better choice.

Simpler times...

This is Beverly Hills, and school districts are funded by property tax revenues. This school district has money coming out of its metaphorical ears.

That, of course, is also a problem, that some school districts are lavishly funded and others struggle mightily. But if the Beverly Hills school district weren't blowing $5M on questionable safety equipment, they'd be blowing it on something else.

Dude, I wish I had mod points! This is the best laugh I've had all day.

I think the whole notion of applying a behavior-management program designed for individual drivers to a company operating a fleet of robot drivers makes no sense. It's a different situation, and calls for different regulatory strategies. I'm not saying there shouldn't be regulation of autonomous vehicles, just that it should be tailored to address that problem, rather than applying a solution designed for a different problem.

And, frankly, California's strategy seems like a good one. They're allowing systems to be built and tested on public roads because the systems will, when fully operational, yield enormous benefits to the people; safer roads, lower-cost transport, recovery of vast amounts of space currently devoted to parking lots, etc. They're also overseeing this testing, requiring regular reports, being ready to intervene and impose additional requirements or revoke permission to operate, etc.

Are those mechanisms relevant or useful for regulating autonomous vehicles? It seems to me that you're applying a system designed to incentivize and manage the behavior of individual human drivers to an entirely different context. That doesn't make sense.

What does? Well, pretty much what California is doing. There's a regulatory agency tasked with defining rules for licensing self-driving systems to operate on state roads. Failure to comply with regulatory requirements, or evidence of failure to behave safely and effectively results in the state rescinding the license to operate. Of course, not every failure is of a magnitude that justifies license revocation, and how the maker of the system responds to problems is a key factor in determining an appropriate response.

In this case, Waymo had a significant problem. Waymo responded by immediately suspending service until, presumably, they figure out how to address the problem. Assuming they fix it, that's reasonable behavior that doesn't warrant much response by the regulator, except perhaps to look into Waymo's design and testing processes to see whether this gap is indicative of others.

This all makes a lot more sense than trying to fit policies designed for humans onto machines.

Thanks. I guess this requirement goes away when the system graduates out of "test" mode?

I was looking for a reference. Luckily, ObliviousGnat was actually helpful.

What part of that document says they have to be networked? I skimmed it and didn't see anything like that. I found some stuff about remote operators, but those appear to be optional.

Well, the Nest 2nd gen thermostat was sold from 2012-2015 (when it was replaced by the 3rd gen), and support ended in 2025, so, 10 years.

AFAICT, approximately all software development internships are paid, most of them reasonably well. I have two insights into this, the first is as working SWE. My employers and all of the others around them pay interns pretty well. The second is as a member of the industry advisors board for my alma mater, a non-prestigious four-year state university. Talking to other industry reps and to professors and university job placement support staff, I've yet to encounter anyone who knows of any unpaid internships. The internships in the area where I live (Utah) are much less well-compensated than internships in the area where I work (Silicon Valley), but even the Utah internships are $15-30 per hour. Not great money, but not terrible for someone who doesn't have a degree or any work experience.

The closest thing to an unpaid internship I've seen in software is that my university has a grant program that will pay students to do internships at local companies, so the intern is free to the company they're doing work for, but the student is still getting paid $15/hour. This program exists mostly because it's been found that giving companies free interns helps them realize that hiring interns is a good idea, and nearly all of them go on to set up their own internship programs (funded by them, not the grant).

Other industries have unpaid internships, and it's certainly possible that as the software industry scales back its hiring of entry-level engineers, unpaid internships may become a thing, but AFAICT, this hasn't happened.

AFAIK, it doesn't matter who serves the ads. It's a low-quality page.

Follow-up:

I asked claude.ai about this question and it agreed with the position that the GPL not only doesn't impose any obligation on the seller to the buyer, but actively disclaims any obligation (except the obligation to offer source code).

Claude was more thorough than I was, though, and actually looked up the details of the judge's tentative opinion and found that SFC's theory isn't that the obligation arises under the GPL, but that an implicit contract under California law was formed when Vizio's TV's License menu option offered the source code, and Paul Visscher accepted that offer through live chat with Vizio's tech support.

SFC's theory is that this offer and acceptance constitutes the formation of an enforceable contract under California law, and that the court can, therefore, order equitable relief, i.e. order Vizio to provide the source code.

This means the ruling isn't about the GPL at all, and also seems like a really reasonable argument that Vizio needs to cough up the source code to everything their license menu offered. The GPL's only role here is that it motivated Vizio to make the offer through the license menu.

That accords with my understanding, and undermines dskoll's argument that the buyer has standing. The SFC probably needs to pull a copyright owner into the suit to have standing. Unless the SFC is a copyright owner, which is entirely possible. I know they've asked owners of GPL'd code to assign copyrights. I assume some have.