It wouldn’t surprise me if the way it determines how busy places are would be considered a bigger privacy violation than these webcams (which only show people in their areas while Google somehow can report on how busy many arbitrary locations are vs their usual).

Considering ms has changed the look and feel of windows itself over the years, sometimes pretty drastically, there’s some leeway there.

Car doors that aren’t on teslas don’t fail open, they are reliable enough that I can’t think of hearing about any failures that don’t involve a collision and deforming of the door (in which case it’s a fail closed and they use the jaws of life to get people out, or another door).

An electronic latch is either engaged or it isn’t. Fail open would mean that in the absence of an electronic signal saying it should be closed, the latch will default to not being engaged, which would mean there’s nothing holding the door closed if another force acts on it.

Don’t assume any benefit of the doubt about Tesla’s. I made no comment one way or another about what I think of their doors vs other doors. For the record, I agree completely that they fucked up this part of the design. The purpose of my comment was to say that taking that design and adding “fail open” to it won’t fix it. Fail open and fail closed both have problems with an electronic latch and the only way to fix it without causing other big problems is to design it in a way that still functions as a door that can be open or latched closed whether or not the electronic part of the latch is working.

And I’m “deliberately misinterpreting” what fail open means? I’m having trouble understanding how it can mean anything other than how I’m interpreting it, even with your clarification, given the disagreement about other car doors failing open. Maybe it’s a misnomer that I’m misinterpreting but why are you assuming I’m doing this in bad faith?

The downvotes themselves don’t matter, I asked because I wanted to know the reasoning behind them, well aware that bringing them up at all will probably result in more of them.

For the fail-safe bit, if the latching system fails to an unlatched position, then the inertia of the door itself could cause it to open on braking and turns (or if someone leans on it or bumps it), since nothing else would be holding it in place.

Obligatory fuck Elon Musk lol.

It’s not generally as bad here as it is on Reddit. I still see the occasional comments that make me wonder if their author has any reading comprehension skills, but Reddit seemed to have representation from those kinds of posters in most comment threads. Even on the topics where Lemmy has general biases for, comments can still go off the beaten trail without getting crucified.

Though with the smaller sample size of voters, I think Lemmy might see more cases where a comment initially goes one way and then swings the other way, which seems to be the case with my comment above, at least for now (and is part of the reason why I try to refrain from ever commenting on the votes, but usually there’s also a spicy or bolder part of my comment where I’m not as surprised if it goes negative).

Agree on your overall sentiment, though I’d say it is a bit more complicated than that for car doors. You don’t want it to fail and come open while moving, for example, especially if the car is coming to a stop and inertia forces the doors fully open. That Boeing door failed open and it was not very safe.

Vehicle doors should be fail functional rather than open to fail safe. As in designed to be very unlikely to fail and/or still functional even if one or several components do fail.

Edit: I normally avoid commenting on my downvotes (you win some, you lose some) but this one is baffling. What’s controversial or unpopular about what I said?

With sarcasm, one might say that it is desirable to have obviously undesirable thing. Your interpretation is one way, but I think they really meant “stupid” instead of “smart”.

Manual release or you die, just like that lady that drove hers into her pond.

Next thing they are going to say asbestos is dangerous even though I’ve touched it before without dying!

And in a recent survey, 9 out of 10 tobacco executives say, “Don’t worry about safety, just have another smooth tasting premium filtered cigarette!”

“We’ll force you to reuse the same username and password for these different functions!”

How sad is it that Idiocracy overestimated people?

Or use it to implement a script that just downloads the video and cuts the ads out entirely for later watching.

Or, failing any of those, a script that pops up a reminder that YouTube has unskippable ads so you can back out and just do something else with your time.

And if they didn’t develop the culture of sweeping safety issues under the rug at all levels, they won’t have much trouble keeping ahead because I’m sure that even at the height of Boeing’s safety ignoring, I bet most of the communication still looked like they took safety seriously. Just those in the know realized that they could make themselves look better by faking it and their management wouldn’t care. I’ve gotta assume that some number of them will think the current safety culture overhaul is really trying to send a message of “just be smarter about ignoring safety, don’t let it get to the point where doors fall off mid-flight and we need to kill some whistleblowers”.

Assuming the show reflects corporate values and isn’t just propaganda like US police shows are intended to make the Korean public (and anyone watching from outside of Korea) think that that’s how that would be treated.

From what I understand, South Korea’s economy is dominated by a small number of mega corps (like Samsung) that try to do pretty much everything.

While I’m not surprised if fascists use it, I don’t think it is disinformation if they do, seems like more of a human thing where people generally just want to live their lives but asshole control freaks want to take power and gradually do while most just focus on their own things until the control freaks cross too many lines and people decide the best way to live their best life involves removing them from power.

It all depends on how you define “strong people” and “good times”. The fascist version of this isn’t quite in sync with the one I believe in.

In the whole bad times lead to strong people, which leads to good times, which leads to weak people, which leads to bad times, we’re in the weak people leading to bad times stage. Now things need to get bad enough to start making strong people.

Only problem is the fascists are smarter this time and are pushing everywhere, so this time might not have nation states on the good side.

Remember the nipple that ruined a household name celebrity’s career? Despite the cover being removed having more to do with the actions of another celebrity whose career wasn’t ruined rather than her, adding a layer of misogyny to what was already puritan stupidity?

Even if kids saw it, so what? I can’t see any harm resulting from telling a child of any age that women have breasts for feeding babies, that it is done through the nipple, and that women without babies still have breasts and nipples because the body prepares for maybe having a baby later. And men have nipples because that part of the body doesn’t get different until puberty. And that it can be rude to ask or talk to someone about theirs, and it is very rude (and illegal) to touch them without permission.

Oh that controller bar sounds awesome. I’ve always hated how on PC when you play a game, you can never launch that game again. So glad they finally solved that issue.

It looks like you and the commenter you replied to are talking about two different problems. You’re talking about what to do about excess solar energy, they are talking about how to power AI training in an environmentally-friendly way.

Yeah, if we can still recognize those as faces, it’s possible for a neural net to do so as well.

But I’m talking more about differentiating faces than hiding entirely from such systems. Like makeup can be used to give the illusion that the shape of the face is different with false contour shading. You can’t really change the jawline (I think… I’m not skilled in makeup myself but have an awareness of what it can do) but you can change where the cheekbones appear to be, as well as the overall shape of the cheeks, and you can adjust the nose, too (unless it’s a profile angle).

I think the danger in trying to hide that you have a face entirely is that if it gets detected, there’s a good chance that it will be flagged for attempting to fool the system because those examples you gave are pretty obvious, once you know what’s going on.

It would be like going in to a bank with a ski mask to avoid being recognized vs going in as Mrs Doubtfire. Even if they are just trying to do banking that one time, the ski mask will attract unwanted attention while using a different face would accomplish the goal of avoiding attention.

Plus our allowing sociopaths to hold so much power.