What evidence is there of a warning? Why didn't Tesla cite this evidence already?
All they said was that there multiple warnings that day, but not specifically in the six seconds before the crash when he had his hands off the wheel. It's a classic misleading statement.
It could record opportunistically when there already a power usage spike.
That is the most likely mode of operation. Record when the Facebook app is open.
Also, do you have any evidence that "listening" more than they are allowed by the user will harm their bottomline in any significant way ?
Well, senior staff going to jail might negatively affect their stock price. Any brands caught up in it might not look too good either, and would likely pull their advertising.
The hands-on-wheel warnings are only every few minutes. If his hands were off the wheel for just 6 seconds then there would have been no warning at all.
Note that Tesla doesn't say there was a warning either, which they would surely have mentioned if there had been. They said there were multiple warnings that day, but not at the time of the crash, which is consistent with the behaviour of their software. The fact that the car had already had to warn him multiple times but was apparently happy to carry on driving at speed in an area known for forcing the driver to take control is pretty damning.
This statement is an admission of guilt. Driver took his hands off the wheel for 6 seconds and the car did nothing to avert the accident. Didn't stop, didn't go nuts with flashing lights and warning sirens, just drove straight into the barrier.
If you create a system that requires the driver to pay attention at all times, where 6 seconds of inattentiveness can result in death, then you have a legal liability to make sure it is safe.
The fact that the system trained the driver to trust it and not pay attention over countless hours just makes it worse, and the fact that it used to let you go for much longer without touching the wheel and they already reduced the time before the warning is displayed is proof that they knew of this flaw and had taken some inadequate steps to fix it.
And the absolute worst part is that this accident seems to be the result of a software update. Recent versions of the Tesla software have developed "barrier lust", so while it might have worked flawlessly thousands of times before one day they pushed an update with vague "makes AP better" change log and it killed the driver.
You wrote in the present tense "what Facebook tends to ban". A simple google search reveals countless examples of such things that have not been banned. Therefore your claim is dubious.
Okay, so what does all that have to do with "part of being an adult is tolerating the freedom of others and that includes you getting over naughty words and ideas that offend your delicate sensibilities"?
I never, have never defended anyone's "right" to be offended or said that people should be protected from "naughty words and ideas". Mere offense certainly should not be protected.
For a normal, healthy person it takes a lot more than saying rude words to cause mental illness. That's the whole point of the "reasonable person" test.
I am highlighting and mocking the culture you advocate which will influence what is a "reasonable person" and it will influence the law.
I don't advocate that, you are simply wrong. The current definition is, if anything, a little overly sensitive in relation to things like offensive jokes, tweets that were clearly not serious and the definition of obscenity.
If you have a better concept than the "reasonable person" test, ideally one that has been proven somewhere, please state it.
I signed up for Skype a while back, after avoiding it as long as I could. I denied access to my contacts, but it seemed to know a lot of people I had not spoken to for a decade or more. I guess they allowed it to check their contact lists and it spotted my email address.
Very creepy, not just for the invasion of privacy but being reminded of people I used to know and suddenly having them be able to see my availability on Skype.
Part of being an adult is tolerating the freedom of others and that includes you getting over naughty words and ideas that offend your delicate sensibilities.
That's what I said. The bit about the law recognizing the concept of a "reasonable person".
I can't believe you think that society should behave like a child and that it should coddle citizens.
I can't believe you have child's level of reading comprehension. The example you give is idiotic and runs contrary to what I explained the law is. You also failed to notice that I was merely explaining the science and the law, not actually advocating either position (although I do broadly agree on those points).
Think about that for a moment. You made yourself angry. Probably because you were triggered by my username and didn't read the post properly. How many times has this happened before? What else are you angry about that was just your own misunderstanding?
In the post-truth worth the assumption is that everyone is lying all the time, the only thing that separates them is your ability to google a quote proving their deception.
The "OK google" and similar trigger phrases are processed by a special low power DSP. The main phone OS does not constantly listen, only the DSP does and the DSP does not contain any recording capability. It's designed for low power, always on operation.
To record constantly would consume too much power, and would also need to either transmit a lot of data or do power-hungry processing. Voice assistants don't do speech recognition on the device, they use a cloud service because it is more accurate and can bring more processing power to the task.
In any case, there is no need to speculate. Simple traffic analysis will tell you if recordings are being transmitted. Simple power analysis (power spike when talking to decode the speech) will tell you if the phone is transcribing your words.
Also, it's quite hard to hide anything in an Android ROM. If there was any audio collection mechanism it would surely be discovered, just like Apple's "accidental" recording of location data was, just like HTC's plain-text fingerprint storage was.
That's the beauty of social media. Unlike the election campaigning that the candidates were legally allowed to do, it's unregulated.
That election was also a time when people were turning away from traditional media and were very much in the post-truth all-politicians-lie-all-the-time frame of mind. They were looking to social media, people who they thought were real and like them.
That meant that social media was incredibly powerful. Memes were incredibly powerful. And they could say anything, pretend to be anything. And a lot of it was Americans, the Russians only needed to stoke the fires that were already burning and amplify those messages.
And I'm sorry, that's exactly right -- if you make a law, then you describe exactly how it works. Tell me what I can and can't do. If you then botch describing things somehow, it's not THEIR problem.
That's completely impractical and most legal systems don't work that way.
Take fraud. It often involves elaborate schemes and deceptions. If you want a precise definition then you either have to enumerate every possible malicious action, every possible scam or lie or misdirection, or you have to enumerate all possible acceptable behaviours. I don't think either of those is practical or acceptable.
That's why sensible laws set out principals and then allow courts to apply them to specific cases.
And the left will point out that they are not the government, are not bound by the first amendment, and they can run their business any way they want to. If you don't like their services, you don't have to advertise on twitter.
What is your alternative? Heavy regulation that forces them to publish any and all political ads? Or just any ads that someone can afford?
And does this extend to other private entities, like TV stations or magazines or billboard owners? What about your house, will people have to right to use your exterior walls to project advertising messages on?
I'm not trying to imply that the situation is black and white. Lots of private property is regulated, such as vehicles and radio transmitters. What I'm asking is where you personally draw the line and what justification you have for forcing Twitter and others to accept your judgement.
The EU's GDPR rules cover old data too. These last few months I've been getting emails from companies asking for permission to keep my data on file. If I ignore them (don't give consent) they have to delete that data.
In fact my own company is scrambling to get all the people on it's spam^H^H^H^H marketing mailing lists to agree to continue receiving emails, otherwise their email addresses have to be scrubbed.
Well they are going to have obey the new European rules that are coming in, or get heavily fined and eventually shut down. So if the US simply adopted very similar rules, it would be as easy for Facebook to comply as adding the US to the list of places where it has to respect privacy.
- rude or critical statements about Hillary Clinton (if you use the words she/her, it's automatically misogynist hate speech) - speech critical of illegal immigrants or advocating the expulsion of illegal immigrants - speech critical or disapproving of Islam
Facebook, like Slashdot and Twitter, doesn't apply the same standard to everyone.
If you register a new account on Slashdot, your karma starts out low. You can post less often and don't get any karma bonus until you have built up your account a bit. Similarly on Twitter, brand new accounts that get immediately reported are often deleted without further warning, because they have a big problem with bots and people register new accounts to get around bans.
Facebook is similar. Once your account is established it gets more leeway. But once it has a number of "strikes" against it, posting something like a Pepe meme can get it banned rather than just warned. Pepe memes are mostly racist, particularly anti-Semitic, and associated with Nazism. The idea was to trick people by exchanging the easily recognizable swastikas for a cartoon frog, so Facebook tends to go easy on first time offenders, but after a pattern emerges they become less tolerant.
Note that I'm not defending Facebook, merely explaining this behaviour which seems to confuse a lot of people (like the infamous "I hate black people" tweet).
Slashdot Mirror
What evidence is there of a warning? Why didn't Tesla cite this evidence already?
All they said was that there multiple warnings that day, but not specifically in the six seconds before the crash when he had his hands off the wheel. It's a classic misleading statement.
It could record opportunistically when there already a power usage spike.
That is the most likely mode of operation. Record when the Facebook app is open.
Also, do you have any evidence that "listening" more than they are allowed by the user will harm their bottomline in any significant way ?
Well, senior staff going to jail might negatively affect their stock price. Any brands caught up in it might not look too good either, and would likely pull their advertising.
I figured it was traditional. Many Unix based operating systems have a electronic book as their primary reference guide.
The hands-on-wheel warnings are only every few minutes. If his hands were off the wheel for just 6 seconds then there would have been no warning at all.
Note that Tesla doesn't say there was a warning either, which they would surely have mentioned if there had been. They said there were multiple warnings that day, but not at the time of the crash, which is consistent with the behaviour of their software. The fact that the car had already had to warn him multiple times but was apparently happy to carry on driving at speed in an area known for forcing the driver to take control is pretty damning.
This statement is an admission of guilt. Driver took his hands off the wheel for 6 seconds and the car did nothing to avert the accident. Didn't stop, didn't go nuts with flashing lights and warning sirens, just drove straight into the barrier.
If you create a system that requires the driver to pay attention at all times, where 6 seconds of inattentiveness can result in death, then you have a legal liability to make sure it is safe.
The fact that the system trained the driver to trust it and not pay attention over countless hours just makes it worse, and the fact that it used to let you go for much longer without touching the wheel and they already reduced the time before the warning is displayed is proof that they knew of this flaw and had taken some inadequate steps to fix it.
And the absolute worst part is that this accident seems to be the result of a software update. Recent versions of the Tesla software have developed "barrier lust", so while it might have worked flawlessly thousands of times before one day they pushed an update with vague "makes AP better" change log and it killed the driver.
Huh... Of all the things I posted today, I really didn't expect this one to trigger someone.
Personally I wouldn't use the world "violence", but that's just avoiding the issue.
You wrote in the present tense "what Facebook tends to ban". A simple google search reveals countless examples of such things that have not been banned. Therefore your claim is dubious.
Okay, so what does all that have to do with "part of being an adult is tolerating the freedom of others and that includes you getting over naughty words and ideas that offend your delicate sensibilities"?
I never, have never defended anyone's "right" to be offended or said that people should be protected from "naughty words and ideas". Mere offense certainly should not be protected.
For a normal, healthy person it takes a lot more than saying rude words to cause mental illness. That's the whole point of the "reasonable person" test.
I am highlighting and mocking the culture you advocate which will influence what is a "reasonable person" and it will influence the law.
I don't advocate that, you are simply wrong. The current definition is, if anything, a little overly sensitive in relation to things like offensive jokes, tweets that were clearly not serious and the definition of obscenity.
If you have a better concept than the "reasonable person" test, ideally one that has been proven somewhere, please state it.
I signed up for Skype a while back, after avoiding it as long as I could. I denied access to my contacts, but it seemed to know a lot of people I had not spoken to for a decade or more. I guess they allowed it to check their contact lists and it spotted my email address.
Very creepy, not just for the invasion of privacy but being reminded of people I used to know and suddenly having them be able to see my availability on Skype.
What about quality? They measure compression performance, but not if the resulting video files are of equivalent quality.
Then again it's Facebook, shitty quality video doesn't matter.
Part of being an adult is tolerating the freedom of others and that includes you getting over naughty words and ideas that offend your delicate sensibilities.
That's what I said. The bit about the law recognizing the concept of a "reasonable person".
I can't believe you think that society should behave like a child and that it should coddle citizens.
I can't believe you have child's level of reading comprehension. The example you give is idiotic and runs contrary to what I explained the law is. You also failed to notice that I was merely explaining the science and the law, not actually advocating either position (although I do broadly agree on those points).
Think about that for a moment. You made yourself angry. Probably because you were triggered by my username and didn't read the post properly. How many times has this happened before? What else are you angry about that was just your own misunderstanding?
In the post-truth worth the assumption is that everyone is lying all the time, the only thing that separates them is your ability to google a quote proving their deception.
The "OK google" and similar trigger phrases are processed by a special low power DSP. The main phone OS does not constantly listen, only the DSP does and the DSP does not contain any recording capability. It's designed for low power, always on operation.
To record constantly would consume too much power, and would also need to either transmit a lot of data or do power-hungry processing. Voice assistants don't do speech recognition on the device, they use a cloud service because it is more accurate and can bring more processing power to the task.
In any case, there is no need to speculate. Simple traffic analysis will tell you if recordings are being transmitted. Simple power analysis (power spike when talking to decode the speech) will tell you if the phone is transcribing your words.
Also, it's quite hard to hide anything in an Android ROM. If there was any audio collection mechanism it would surely be discovered, just like Apple's "accidental" recording of location data was, just like HTC's plain-text fingerprint storage was.
It's just too implausible.
put Mao ornaments on the White House Christ^h^h^h^h^h^hWinter Tree
If that was true you might actually have a point. When you have to make stuff up, it rather undermines you entire argument.
That's the beauty of social media. Unlike the election campaigning that the candidates were legally allowed to do, it's unregulated.
That election was also a time when people were turning away from traditional media and were very much in the post-truth all-politicians-lie-all-the-time frame of mind. They were looking to social media, people who they thought were real and like them.
That meant that social media was incredibly powerful. Memes were incredibly powerful. And they could say anything, pretend to be anything. And a lot of it was Americans, the Russians only needed to stoke the fires that were already burning and amplify those messages.
And I'm sorry, that's exactly right -- if you make a law, then you describe exactly how it works. Tell me what I can and can't do. If you then botch describing things somehow, it's not THEIR problem.
That's completely impractical and most legal systems don't work that way.
Take fraud. It often involves elaborate schemes and deceptions. If you want a precise definition then you either have to enumerate every possible malicious action, every possible scam or lie or misdirection, or you have to enumerate all possible acceptable behaviours. I don't think either of those is practical or acceptable.
That's why sensible laws set out principals and then allow courts to apply them to specific cases.
Seriously, why not move to block HTTP traffic?
It's happening. Chrome already flags HTTP sites as insecure, and won't load HTTP content on mixed HTTP/HTTPS pages.
Most modern computers don't even have a BIOS any more. In fact most don't even have a beeper.
Some people were using beep to create delays in scripts. The mind boggles.
https://www.teslarati.com/tesl...
https://insideevs.com/200000-m...
They don't use those 18650B cells, they use a different chemistry.
And the left will point out that they are not the government, are not bound by the first amendment, and they can run their business any way they want to. If you don't like their services, you don't have to advertise on twitter.
What is your alternative? Heavy regulation that forces them to publish any and all political ads? Or just any ads that someone can afford?
And does this extend to other private entities, like TV stations or magazines or billboard owners? What about your house, will people have to right to use your exterior walls to project advertising messages on?
I'm not trying to imply that the situation is black and white. Lots of private property is regulated, such as vehicles and radio transmitters. What I'm asking is where you personally draw the line and what justification you have for forcing Twitter and others to accept your judgement.
The EU's GDPR rules cover old data too. These last few months I've been getting emails from companies asking for permission to keep my data on file. If I ignore them (don't give consent) they have to delete that data.
In fact my own company is scrambling to get all the people on it's spam^H^H^H^H marketing mailing lists to agree to continue receiving emails, otherwise their email addresses have to be scrubbed.
Well they are going to have obey the new European rules that are coming in, or get heavily fined and eventually shut down. So if the US simply adopted very similar rules, it would be as easy for Facebook to comply as adding the US to the list of places where it has to respect privacy.
- rude or critical statements about Hillary Clinton (if you use the words she/her, it's automatically misogynist hate speech)
- speech critical of illegal immigrants or advocating the expulsion of illegal immigrants
- speech critical or disapproving of Islam
These are all trivial to disprove.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Afa...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Afa...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Afa...
Facebook, like Slashdot and Twitter, doesn't apply the same standard to everyone.
If you register a new account on Slashdot, your karma starts out low. You can post less often and don't get any karma bonus until you have built up your account a bit. Similarly on Twitter, brand new accounts that get immediately reported are often deleted without further warning, because they have a big problem with bots and people register new accounts to get around bans.
Facebook is similar. Once your account is established it gets more leeway. But once it has a number of "strikes" against it, posting something like a Pepe meme can get it banned rather than just warned. Pepe memes are mostly racist, particularly anti-Semitic, and associated with Nazism. The idea was to trick people by exchanging the easily recognizable swastikas for a cartoon frog, so Facebook tends to go easy on first time offenders, but after a pattern emerges they become less tolerant.
Note that I'm not defending Facebook, merely explaining this behaviour which seems to confuse a lot of people (like the infamous "I hate black people" tweet).