dfps

All police interaction is newsworthy.

Newsworthiness is already a defense in some parts of law. It is a matter worked out by society through cases over time. I know I'm talking to someone who hasn't studied law much so I'll just say you can read a lot about this when you study it, especially the history of constitutional law. But you could start with the idea that it is an event that later might be subject to debate or controversy.

Yes, chat app users could be fined if they identifiably capture the images of strangers (but, as you know, it is not required to video strangers in order to use chat apps). You would sometimes know and sometimes not, like many crimes, but it provides recourse for those affected and chills those who would otherwise do it without considering the effect on others.

That's not the case, but is just a common attitude/excuse for ineffectual/lazy citizens. Simply by making a law you allow offended citizens to act against privacy invasion, and they can chose to expend their efforts to remedy such abuses, which chills the will of offending people to video strangers and upload the videos, and we can also mention the de-monetization effects, since many people video all strangers as they walk to fund their travel, for example.

In practice, that qualification allows people to walk around with a cellphone or 360 degree video camera in front of them, film everyone, and upload it as a 'walking through a city' video to monetize on YouTube. They don't blur the faces, and people presented in it, who are clear and identifiable, have no recourse (mostly because YouTube and Facebook ignore complaints). If it were people taking individual photos it would be different, because photo taking is more limited (but still too privacy invasive if strangers are identifiably photographed) and the focus is usually on the person or his companions, but when video, cloud, and YouTube enter the picture it becomes a different practice.

It also doesn't protect people's data privacy. Capturing their image in an iPhone or most Android phones means, for basic people, the photo is scanned and stored in the cloud. All identities (on a 50 megapixel camera) are marked and stored automatically.

These two issues are the heart of my question. Those European laws were arguably adequate in addressing the issue 20 years ago, but technology has changed the shape of the issue.

Apple is in its own category because its users consent (by purchase and use) to allow Apple/its friends to scan and store the data, ie iPhone users are essentially corporo-state agents. I think HN participants mostly don't need to hear this since they're pretty educated already.

Is the dashcam footage local to the dashcam or the users private data storage, and is gone when the user deletes it?

Or is the dashcam managed by a company that collects and stores the data up uploaded to a cloud of an insecure company?

See 'newsworthy exception'

It wouldn't be impossible to enforce, but like all laws it is impossible to enforce 100%, while they have an effect and provide at least government and ethical support and remedy for those affected.

Also it would allow people to sue YouTube creators who do so, whereas currently there is no recourse because YouTube can just ignore complaints.

Is Iran ineffective or are the goals just other than stated?

(To reply to other statements in your reply, Canadians I know don't really have any new beef with the US and seem to have an issue only with Trump/White House (and are divided on support, like Americans are), but since 2028 might be more of the current Trump party it's hard to decide whether to plan for 2 more years or 6 more. Wouldn't a different US leader cause an immediate rapprochement?)

Is this AI generated?

Will citizens accept that more blatant form of inflation creation (QE) though? or do popularly elected politicians need to somehow create support or 'inevitability' for a workaround (trade war)?

For sure tariffs are a form of tax, but at what point is a tax revenue and at what point is it moreso just inflation?

Are we comparing USA to other countries and saying America should be held to their standards? or is USA the strongest, most worked on Constitution in the world and what happens with it is what is important?

100x would mean after one month, people'd say 'I just did 10 years of work.' Is anyone saying that yet?

Don't you think coding is being reassessed in terms of cash value? Egyptian scribes.

Other ways of payment include donations. But in general coded products will (don't you think?) not be cash compensated in the same way as when coding was scarce ('Please take this $300k per year and I don't even care if you complete your tasks!') and there weren't enough products out there yet (the opposite situation as current), and the incumbents were protected by government partnerships.

There are other compensations, but this only applies to people who care about things other than exclusively making the most possible money. Luckily, the workforce now includes many coders so a percentage will be interested in creating products that actually benefit people and are secure.

The idea that 'ideas are cheap' is common but wrong. If that were the case, we would get great new products every day.

Some people are technical and enjoy most building (here coding) but don't have a useful idea. Others have complimentary strengths and weaknesses. Most complex products we have were thought of, designed, and built by different people, as I'm sure you know.

Also, it sounds like you might just be in a different stage or a different personality type. Imagine when you've got your bills paid, but still see many problems around you, and most will not be ones that can be solved through profit motives.

Might there also be a consideration of peak value of OpenAI? If a bunch of competing similar AIs are entering the market, and if the usecase fantasy is currently being humbled, staff might be thinking of bubble valuation.

Did anyone else find Altman conspicuously cooperative with government during his interview at Congress? Usually people are a bit more combative. Like he came off as almost pre-slavish? I hope that's not the case, but I haven't seen any real position on human rights.

This is only true for the majority of people

Obvious things don't need to be stated generally

Why spend energy on non-help

Work for free, change the internet

Looking for probably someone with a few years behind them, maybe 40s or older, who already has made money and had successes. Someone who is somewhat rebellious. Someone who doesn't just accept what's there. Someone with a little free time on their hands, a few hours per week at least. Someone who's a good coder, understands coding websites with cross-site integration, regular but good php, javascript, html, etc. Someone who has integrity.

The internet is bad now mostly because of tools which aren't in people's hands because they don't exist.

You don't have to believe I've come up with several, but I have, over the past several years. On a couple of them, I paid coders to develop them, and got to a decent point of development, but they all have bugs and small things to change, which my coder just drifted on and never actually fixed for months until I fired him. I'm fine with how I spent my time and money working on these, but this wasn't the way to do it. I need a partner, not an employee.

I don't care about money and am fine working on this without making any. However, I can't complete these things because I don't have coding experience or the time to learn coding (and I'm not a coder by birth. If I had to learn to code to do these I'll just leave them and never do them.)

I have no tech connections. I don't live in a place where there are tech people.

Buffet has a long resume.

I guess any sense. New things would be interesting to see people doing.

Or it could be things to make a better internet, which means things that people don't currently have in their hands.

Or even a one-hour window once per week, when they let each account post one domain's post (other accounts can't also post that domain), so any blog can get some exposure. How would they combat malware sites though?

Not to be rude, and i could be wrong, but the rules you mentuon sound stupid and gratuitous, rather than the photographers being a problem.

Yes, but users will accept it and be satisfied if the change is good. How manu of us have tools we continue to use (or long for when using alternatives) because they worked so well.

Most tech seems to ignore usability, though.

Samsung galaxy updates suck.

Korg Electribe rules.

Does anyone feel lile commenting on why stock price fell after this?

Is this a positive service?

It sounds like adblock. Sounds great until you consider youre defunding things you want to exist (for free)...

It wont apply to everyone. For people who enjoy most movies that come out, for example the superhero series and wizards and warrior series, this wont apply because your taste is easy to meet (the majority of consumers).

However, if you arent satisfied by these films but want something that provides more in terms of story, originality, verisimilitude, revelation, or some other of a lot of possibilities, youll look out at the hige catalog of films that have been produced and find only dozens that are really something you enjoy. Theyre hard to make, and so theres only a few directors who have made them. When you watch eyes wide shut, you know you cant get ot elsewhere.

Why did they end it? Was it losing money?

In some ways it seemed superior to the other giants, plus it was tied to most peoples' google accounts.

Why didnt they just add advertisements, paid posts, and clean up the ui?

How much of this is in response to the tyranical state thats been trying to subsume theirs?

People who publish on social media are already very vulnerable to destoying their ability to distibute what they have to say. Their existence is fragile.

"is here to stay" because what?