Came to look for/say this. As long as the consequences come to Sam Altman first, let's gooooooooo

" All cell phones by law have a AM/FM capabilty"

Untrue. False. Made up.

" into the AM broadcast band, which is about 50 times lower in frequency than AM broadcast"

Huh? Maybe you meant 'about 50 times lower in frequency than FM broadcast'. If only FM had better range, but nope.

Bear in mind that the 'emergency' where your car radio could be most useful might, no probably, will also have a power outage in there somewhere. Cell service will not last too long when the batteries die, and the generators don't work, or weren't there at all...

"Who the hell cares if I can get a radio station from thousands of miles away "

Most AM radio listening is to local stations. MW propagation can range a few thousand miles, but it's somewhat unusual.

And not the point of the defense of AM radio in automobiles. Timely information, emergency information, AM is still a popular option, and listenership is not decreasing.

"just buy a radio'. Huh, so that handheld radio would not suffer from interference (Hams call it WRM, but it is really RFI) just like the build in unit? The real problem here is that automobile manufacturers do not want to solve the RFI issues. It is expensive. And complex. And not unreasonable. The AM radio in my Prius does not suffer form RFI, and there is an inverter and HV drive system in there. Tesla etc. will have to employ serious engineers to show then where they went wrong. A Herculean effort? I bet not.

ps - Duke sucks.

I dunno where you live, but police around where I live (and for at least a 100 mile radius) do not think their jobs are boring, unless you think the risk of a bullet boring a hole in your body is 'boring'.

Repetitive? Yeah, domestic violence, homeless overdoses, e-moto kid stupidity, and random-ish shootings, rinse and repeat.

True. Eyewitness reports, a BOLO for 'Durango' out over the radio or network, and Liz gets this treatment anyways.

"'Better Call Saul"

Um, using popular entertainment as an example of real life behavior is not quite as dumb as it gets, but it's on the same block.

"two police officers who she says claimed there was incriminating damage on her vehicle"

"But her car is a different color"

Common police tactics, and generally legal, but not very ethical.

The claim of evidence, whether it is true or not, is a common interrogation tactic, intended to elicit a confession. This is when you, the accused, either demand a lawyer be present to represent you, or clam up and invoke your right to remain silent (and let them prove their case on their own).

The mistaken color is another common police tactic. They know eyewitnesses often get details wrong. Color of your car? Easily mistaken. Or not. Advice above holds here also, lawyer and clam up.

The police generally are motivated to solve cases and close the books. Let the courts figure out true guilt. When you are being questioned, or are detained, you cannot trust them AT ALL. They are no longer serving you. You are their lawful prey, and they will pursue you.

I hope Liz makes them pay enough to deter at least one. But I doubt the police will change one bit.

While the reasons matter they aren't relevant to the point, which is that any cops covering for bad cops aren't good cops. If the system is designed to reject good cops, then both the system and the cops are bad.

The code is AGPL'd. If they don't have another mechanism for distributing the code to anyone entitled to receive it then kinda: closing the repo isn't illegal, but not observing the license is unlawful, and grounds for legal action.

People evacuating benefit from information on evacuation, like which routes are viable. This can change while in transit, and the cell phone network goes to shit when it's leaned on at all so you need a broadcast radio information source. So yes, they fucking well do.

To my mind, nobody wants this to get to this supreme court, because the outcome could be anything someone is willing to pay for. But it's going to wind up there eventually. If it does get there under this administration the most likely outcome is something beneficial to AI service providers, quite possibly allowing GenAI to wash away copyrights. But will it do so enough to allow someone else to copyright the result, or will it be basically uncopyrightable and therefore (in the case of code or other, similar output like instructions) protectable only with secrecy? That would be an interesting outcome.

Right, they're arguing that they should be allowed to knowingly sell products which produce radio interference which affects FCC-licensed use there, devices with a public safety interest no less. Also, if their lack of shielding is affecting AM radio, then it's almost certainly affecting other things as well. That was a weird argument.

But the whole thing is weird all over for the reasons stated. Getting the radio signal into the car isn't expensive or difficult. Practically any one of us could do it with an off the shelf module which costs twenty bucks with e-tail costs and profit baked in. They're already shielding the PCB in the antenna. It's got to cost them a few dollars per unit at the absolute most to add AM even if they put a whole receiver in there. Their arguments are crappy even from a distance.

The detective is paid to maintain the status quo first and think second, like every other cop, except that he's actually paid to think at some point.