This is why you fundamentally cannot rely on private companies to build the "town square". This will _always_ happen because every company has a profit motive (even if its a loooong tail via SV-style funding). The problem behind the problem is people want great communities and tools, but don't way to provide any effort to build them.
This was both a new topic to me and a remarkably succinct (and well-cited) comment. Did you happen to do this research independently or do you reference a more comprehensive source?
I love doing research so I tried to answer the question for myself, "why does iodine deficiency cause cognitive impairment"? I have no background here.
Then I discovered that brain cells walk around during brain formation. MindBlown!
The core issue is those red light cameras create a persistent database of who is where, which is then sold at a marginal cost to whoever wants it to advertise to/manipulate/track a population. Adding cameras everywhere invites a dystopian nightmare vs better urban design and occasional traffic police would solve the same problem.
i grew up somewhere that had red light cameras, the idea that they are selling the data is BS justification for diminished state capacity to enforce something really important.
e: for those downvoting, please point me to a single case of a municipality selling red light violation data if this is such a real concern
I wish they'd go a step further and offer this for adults too. Facebook has become the lowest common denominator communication platform (at least in my family/friend circles). It would be great to have a site to log in and periodically scroll through family photos, hear about milestones, etc. without influencers and video shorts. I'd even pay $ to have that feed without ads.
I'm not a doctor, and I couldn't give you medical advice if I was, but tinnitus can be caused by health conditions you really should get checked out. High blood pressure etc.
> About a decade ago, encouraged by government subsidies, hundreds of automakers across China, both established players and startups, waded into electric-car manufacturing. They churned out huge numbers of early-stage EVs — relatively no-frills cars whose batteries in some instances could only run for around 100 kilometers (62 miles) on a charge.
> Those vehicles were mostly bought by ride-hailing companies that leased them to drivers. “At the beginning of China’s EV market, delivery numbers were driven by car-sharing fleets,” said Young Huang, a senior analyst with JSC Automotive, a consultancy with offices in Shanghai and Stuttgart. “Only a few private customers chose to buy them.”
> The demand helped juice an industry that has grown exponentially ever since. China is now the world leader in clean cars, producing around 6 million EVs and plug-in hybrids last year, or almost one in every three new cars sold domestically. It accounts for 60% of the world’s current electric fleet, and has the most extensive EV charging infrastructure on Earth — also built with government support.
(emphasis above mine)
> The graveyards are a troubling consequence of that consolidation. Not only are the sites an eyesore, getting rid of EVs so quickly reduces their climate benefit considering they’re more emissions-intensive to build and only produce an advantage over combustion cars after a few years. Each of the vehicles’ spent batteries also contain precious ingredients like nickel, lithium and cobalt — metals that could be recycled to make China’s EV industry more environmentally friendly.
> According to local media reports, the government of Hangzhou has vowed to dispose of the cars, which started to accumulate in 2019. But when Bloomberg News visited late last month, reporters uncovered several sites filled with abandoned EVs in the city’s Yuhang and West Lake districts after scouring satellite images and hacking through overgrown dirt paths.
These historical relics from several years ago are not today's EVs China is pumping out, and that is fairly obvious from your citation. I hope this has helped improve your mental model on the topic.
This is an excellent ponit, and I don't know where to exactly draw the line ("I know it when I see it"). I personally use "auto" (probably heuristic, maybe soon-ish AI-powered) features to adjust levels, color balance etc. Using AI to add things that are _not at all present_ in the original crossed the line into digital art vs photography for me.
I draw the line where the original pixel values are still part of the input. As long as you’re manipulating something that the camera captured, it’s still photography, even if the math isn’t the same for all pixels, or is AI powered.
But IMO it’s a point worth bringing up, most people have no idea how digital photography works and how difficult it is to measure, quantify and interpret the analog signal that comes from a camera sensor to even resemble an image.
There was the small complication of the fact that the moon texture that Samsung got caught putting onto moon-shaped objects in photos is, of course, the same side of the same moon.
> the moon texture that Samsung got caught putting onto moon-shaped objects in photos is, of course, the same side of the same moon.
Probably not exactly the same side and orientation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration#Lunar_libration: “over time, slightly more than half (about 59% in total) of the Moon's surface is seen from Earth due to libration”
Sort of, kind of, but not shot at the same time, and not at the same location.
I would object slightly less if they made a model (3D or AI) that captures the whole side of the Moon in high detail, and used that, combined with precise location and date/time, to guide resolving the blob in camera input into a high-resolution rendering *that matches, with high accuracy and precision, what the camera would actually see if it had better optics and sensor*. It still feels like faking things, but at least the goal would be to match reality as close as possible.
As an eng manager, I always make it super clear (many times) when new engineers onboard they're always welcome to say "this doesn't make sense" ask for more details. Sometimes (maybe even often) they're right. I also enourage them to "assume good intent" from other devs and managers. Fundamentally no one manager knows everyone and no one engineer is right about everything.
I don't think it's really a question of humility. it's more about placing the highest value on the functioning of the team. once your overriding goal is 'not looking bad', and 'escaping blame', that goal, which should be primary gets completely lost.
Yes. A simple fine for each verified instance prominently displaying a clearly fraudulent advertisement seems like a reasonable solution. Maybe instead of spending engineering cycles thinking of how to jam a larger volume of ads down our throats, Google can develop better ways to detect and reject scams. Win/Win.
In practical terms this is like saying "you're welcome to decline food". Part of the argument for limiting federal government in the first place is to prevent this kind of arm twisting.
> In practical terms this is like saying "you're welcome to decline food".
And that's true. Federal road funding for highways comes with some specific regulations and conditions, on signage, minimum bridge heights, etc. To extend the food analogy, if someone's gifting you free food, it's probably a bit rude to complain you don't like the parsley garnish.
This misses the point, you can't actually decline this funding. The federal government taxes it out of your state and then gives it back to you with conditions sidestepping the fact it would be brazenly unconstitutional for the federal government to institute these rules directly.
Trump poked the bear with this one by trying to withhold unrelated federal funding to sanctuary cities and Obama got made folks really mad when he tried it with the ACA.
This would be an even bigger waste than that, given the relatively small condition being applied, but opting out for ideological reasons is clearly doable.
You're making a thing that's grey out to be black and white. You can impose conditions on money that is deemed by a court to actually be feasible to decline which is why medicaid expansion was ruled constitutional but tying those conditions to medicaid funding in its entirety would have likely been slapped down based on the opinions after the case.
And with this court who has an axe to grind with expansion of federal power I expect the bar is much lower now.
