In a modern car adding a "remote kill" ability will be EXACTLY the same whether or not the car has this imparment-detection software. Again you are trying to steer this in nonsense directions which is counterproductive because it makes opponents look like idiots.

The problem with this is false positives and false negatives. That is it. Anything about some other way of turning off the car is total nonsense because this legislation does absolutely nothing to make that easier or harder, so please stop talking about that because it makes you look stupid. Most other legit complaints about this all fall under the "false positive" label.

I have zero care what you voting twats think.

I dunno, what IS the chance? Do you have a good analysis/source, or is this just something you're abstractly worried about? What are the chances that the US government has a kill switch in US-made cars? They seem like a bigger threat to Canada than China right now, so should we stop buying American cars?

I'm more worried about the stuff that EV makers are TELLING US, like they might be recording us in our cars and uploading that data for customer tracking. I think it was Hyundai/Kia that basically said, "hey, if you have sex in your car and we hear it, that's on you."

I don't think Carney sold us out at all. This is the bare minimum.

If we're going to exist in a nominally capitalist society, we need to be able to reap the sole benefit of capitalism, which is competition making better products for less. Not only has the government propped up the auto industry for years with subsidies, tax breaks, and union weakening legislation, we get to pay more for our (huge, wasteful) vehicles to boot. It was all the other governments that sold us out. The amount of money that has gone into the auto industry for a piddly return is just enormous.

Let the Chinese in. Let them build cars here. I do not give a single shit about Ford or GM and their stock prices. If they can't hack it, gtfo. I love a union job, but they sure don't, and they've been destroying the unions here for years. We need cheaper EVs here as part of our energy transition, and all they want to do is build lifted full-sized pickup trucks that stick out of parking spaces. If they had properly committed to EVs here in Canada--I don't give a fuck what's happening in the USA--maybe they wouldn't be in this mess.

We're mired in a mess made by the corporatists that have run this country for the last 3 decades, and now they're in a bind. Maybe if the Chinese come in with cheaper cars they'll get their acts together. I absolutely refuse the propaganda that the Chinese are unfairly subsidizing their industry, they just subsidize their industries more effectively than we do. (For instance, they promise cheap electricity to companies if they're building certain things, so everyone jumps in to try and build the best product. The poor competitors are weeded out, the ones that are most efficient survive. This is in contrast to Canada just offering money and tax breaks and those companies ending up doing stock buybacks and executive compensation packages.)

Either the established car companies will survive or they won't, but that's not supposed to be my concern. If Canada wants to NATIONALIZE a car company to make sure there are always jobs, I'm okay with that too. Despite the obnoxious whining of industry executives, governments are often extremely good at running corporations because they're not concerned with profits for the sake of profits.

tl;dr Fuck NA car companies if they can't make it work under the current regime. They deserve nothing.

This is not a remote âoekill switchâ. Decision to disable the car is done internally and only when it is stopped. The argument against this is the odds of false positives and false negatives, try to remain in reality if you want to win.

Fair enough! (Nice to see another Canadian here, too.) :)

Good riddance.

Public transportation makes people poorer.

Unfortunately it sounds like the statistics include the CO2 produced by users of the fuel. Amount directly produced to create, transport, and leak the product would be more interesting and I think oil companies may be pretty high up there anyway, but not at 50% of all emissions (since you said that 70% manages to survive the production process). If you counted it this way then construction companies would be responsible for CO2 emitted by mixing/pouring/curing concrete, not the people digging up concrete.

It would skew a lot of things however, since a coal power plant would be responsible for all the CO2 it emits (since it's product is electricity), while if a data center instead powered itself with diesel generators it would be responsible for the CO2.

This happened to me the other day too. I don't know why I get suckered into it.

I had a problem where my LSP was returning ??? at the beginning of completions; there were some non-UTF-8 characters in there and I didn't know where they came from. ChatGPT said it was a known problem from some Visual Studio compile flags when they get passed to Clang. In retrospect, that's stupid.

But it said it could solve the problem for me by intercepting the .rsp files, stripping the bad flags, and then passing them on. It wrote a little python script to launch the lsp and strip the flags.

I ran it and it seemed to work, but my testing protocol was wrong, and I was just seeing some correlation--the problem was intermittent, and me putting the script in place happened to coincide with some good responses from the LSP.

When I tried shutting down emacs and starting it again, it couldn't stay connected to the LSP through the script, and of course it couldn't. So the script was never really in play. After searching around for a while, it was a known error with a package called eglot-booster, and it was easy to fix by turning off a particular flag.

I have since instituted a rule where it MUST, WITHOUT FAIL, provide a citation for anything it tells me. If it can't find a citation, it MUST mark the section as unverifiable. That has helped a lot.

From my experimenting, Gemini is excellent at giving citations, but it gives up very easily if you tell it to do something and it can't do a complete job. I tried to have it summarize all the commands in a package that started with : (colon). It did an incomplete job, and when I asked it to do it again, it just told me where the documentation was. Claude did an excellent job. ChatGPT also did a partial job, but maintains conversational context better, so you can often get it to fix its own problems.

It may be just as good. It's Gemini, after all.

It is kind of hand-woven but it sounds like they are counting the carbon produced by people using the products. So kind of a pointless statistic. They are not the only ones making a profit by encouraging consumption of fossil fuels, for instance people give car manufacturers more money for a machine that burns the fuel than they give for the fuel itself.

Yes it's not very clear if this includes the emissions from people using their product, or is just the emissions from the manufacture of their product (and leaks, I guess). It *could* be just the second which is a good deal more interesting and kind of damning.

It would make a lot of sense to include an unmanned lander in the next test, to get a lot more testing done.

They may be purposely avoiding doing this, because it will prove that the addition of humans to the lander really does not change what can be accomplished by the mission.

Sorry I cannot see any possible way these two services can be 1:1 on mobile while about 20:1 in browsers, assuming both offer working mobile and browser versions. Anybody have an explanation?

2001 had an intermission, right after the two are discussing terminating HAL inside the pod.
It also had a minute or two black screen at the start with music, which I have never seen.