noodlesoups

Moving has a lot of inertia, and might not be possible if nobody is interesting in buying your house, or other area's rent is too high. Your area might have _had_ great service, but has rapidly degraded. There are tons of things outside your control. Having a car is the common answer to gain back some of that.

>I sort of find the idea of self-driving cars as ... selfish?

Well we are selfish creatures. It makes perfect sense, what is the purpose of anything if not for you?

I don't think we'll be satisfied by nothing less than everything, and why should we?

Context awareness is what one needs for sensing BS, a herculean task

That requires a whole different kind of effort. These hacks can be done remotely from the other side of the world and leave little trace

robots that can operate heavy machinery do not interpret the world the same way we do, and do not have anything resembling actual intelligence.

That is exactly why they can't interact with real world cases of fully valid plastic signs coming out of nowhere.

So they're injecting their own ads into sites?

Redunancy and efficiency are common tradeoffs we are constantly trying to balance. It's only a question of how important the effects of downsides are.

Sometimes someone dies as an immediate result, and for some it means waiting for another 5 minutes.

There are pockets for women's clothing?

Wholly dependent on your environment. I don't see a case very often where I'm at

Just make sure it detaches properly, you don't wanta a dozen wire to yank you in mid ascend

Suppose it depends on your country. Here's Finland's (10 §): https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1999/19990731

Although the constitution was recently changed (same one) here aswell, so you may very well have a point: https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10436005

It took what, two months to rush the new clause through? It's like being the constitution has no weight on it at all.

It's doubtful all this would be required just for refugees. Though I've heard of conspiracy theories about taking them in order to justify all-encompassing surveillance to your own populace

It's not difficult to imagine mandating signed bootloaders and signed software to be the norm aswell, there is no one who can make chips by themselves.

Using established methods is not difficult, though making a good crypto to begin with absolutely is.

>Any self-respecting drug cartel and terrorist organization has been using modern encryption at all levels

There are plenty of organizations who by this logic don't. However they don't dissappear, even though we already have the tools available. If they're not capable of using the tools they have, why are they reaching for something substantially harder to do? There must be something else to it if they're not bothering to do what they can.

> It's strange to argue that this ought to have no impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat organized crime

Of course power grants you that, it grants you absolutely anything you want, just like setting a fire gets rid of the rodents in your house, along with the house. That is exactly why absolute power is not to be assigned to any single organization, it can't be contained.

There is also the expectation like anyone using encryption for malicious purposes wouldn't do it regardless of any law, just like criminals carry illegal weapons. Only the law-abiding citizens could therefore be targeted

The saying is twisted, because it already assumes privacy is a privilege, which it is not. It's a basic right, written to the constitution

>but this isn't malevolence. It's fear and lack of competence.

I'm not sure which is worse. We absolutely need people with the expertise in the area to make these kinds of decision. It's like giving a gardener the position to launch nukes. I'm sure they're very capable at trimming bushes, but that isn't exactly useful here.

e2e is really not a must-have in crime. It's a nice-to-have, but people can and often do very well without it. If we aren't capable of catching the lowest hanging fruit, how is this even of any use? At the same time we're not giving out the right signal about the state of surveillance already in place by not utilizing it to it's maximum potential.

Power corrupts, and the effects can be seen all over. Imagine what absolute power does

Cryptography is more math than programming unfortunately. It might take a lot of time to become apt at it, but it is a very commendable goal.

The problem isn't necessarily in using a weaker encryption, it's that you can detect that you can't break some crypto, and arrest whoever is using that. This won't stop illegal use of course, but will stop anyone interested in their privacy

EU is composed of multiple people with multiple, differing goals. It's also to note that things like GDPR only affect peons like corporations or people, not the governments.

It's not like e2e is heavily utilized must-have for crime either. Tons of crime happen through regular unencrypted text messages, and nobody gets caught. But this isn't about protecting in the first place, so it isn't all that relevant.

It's never been about protecting people, it's about power. What is the source of most power? Knowledge. Knowledge about anything and everything. It's unimaginable what you could do with access to every conversation ever had, retroactively at your fingertips.

Power is neutral, it's users are not. We have already seen the dangerous precedent China has set with it's all-encompassing surveillance and human-rights violations.

All problems are fractal in nature, they require a problem-scope in order to be solvable.

In this case, it would be "how fast is fast enough?", which would be fast enough that the human operating the application doesen't lose focus.

For most pages I've viewed with my 150€ phone, submit->time to interactive is between 1-3 seconds for the first non-cached load, and much faster for when revisiting. This is sufficient worst-case for any conceivable tasks performed on web-apps today.

Some exceptions that come to mind (like Reddit) have ulterior motives to force slowness so that people have to use their native app instead (which isn't much better for what I've heard)

Is it with or without an existing hole?

It's more likely users would be mad that their browser update makes them play cookie-clicker to get to their sites.

By and large users are unaware of how much resources something uses, or should use. They don't really care about anything but getting from A to B as fast as possible, with as few interruptions as possible.

Computer resources are just like any other resource; expendable. User will always use more if that means it's more convenient. Human time is very valuable. Accepting multiple dialogues would take even more time than loading a fat page

as an add: there is no single resource you can bind the multiplier to; many sites use no css, but lots of js, or webgl, wasm, tables... There is simply no possible way to foresee what will be slow and what wont

It's impossible to make any sane limits that would universally apply to web pages. An isolated environment for an arbitrary application is the web's purpose, not just loading a text document.

You can actually play hw-accelerated doom3 on a browser today no problems. No add-ons, no nothing needed.

>The best part is that I'm paying for that privilege when I'm not on WiFi.

Datacaps are some of the best examples of the worst kind of rip-offs.

How they're tolerated is beyond my imagination. Here I can get a 100/50 4G consistently, it's for ~20€/mo and the operators have no complaints

>ACS researchers found that the rate at which people are diagnosed with colorectal cancer in the United States is dropping among those 65 and older but rising in younger adults.

Could it be that more young people are taking screenings, while those already taking them have decreased risk of cancer?

I think reckless driving options would do poorly, offering the option to casually go over the speedlimit would be quite a burden on the manufacturer.

There also aren't many situations where your safety isn't tied to others around you

It's always insurance that pays regardless, so it isn't really a part of the equation. It also depends a lot on what kind of accident it is.

Is someone driving into you? Not much physically you can do to avoid it no matter who/what is driving.

Semi-autonomous cars can easily be blamed on the driver, because they're still in charge of the car, just being assisted, not commanded.

Is the car taking unlawful actions on it's own? Should propably fix that on the maker side. Why should any company be exempt when their product is not up to spec? The price increase to make it compliant is necessary, not a nice to have.

And with the trolley problem, you often can't compute philosophical questions with pure logic because of their fractal nature, but you can make it a legal argument. Does the car have the right to kill? If it doesen't, it can't and won't choose. It will be an accident just like any other would be.

This shouldn't be that difficult from legal perspective. Since you don't have the authority to kill someone, you can't choose who to kill.

Any action other than avoiding collateral altogether might be punishable.

As a side-note, nobody is going to buy a car that prefers to kill it's owner