I’ll believe it when I see it. Apple has a demonstrated track record of supporting their phones for years, Google has a demonstrated track record of killing anything that isn’t an immediate run-away success. So sorry Google, but I can’t just take your word for it.

I doubt that would hold up in a court of law. The ability to record in public hinges on having no “reasonable expectation to privacy” while in public spaces. You DO have a reasonable right to privacy in the backyard of your own property, even if it’s visible from some public airspaces.

It is two different modes of the same system, one just has more features enabled than the other. You also can’t tell if the driver is paying attention, as they are mostly out of frame. Even if they are, their hands are entirely off the wheel, and it’s unlikely that they would be able to react in time to prevent an accident even if they are paying attention.

Autopilot is capable of navigating though, and it does make decisions like when to merge and when to execute a turn, by design. I don’t think it’s adequately equipped to make those decisions, but by design, it does. They even advertise it on their official YouTube channel, with a clip of them just plugging in a destination and letting the car get them there in their video. Tesla is responsible for advertising they do, and claims they make of their product that simply aren’t true.

No, we would (rightfully so) blame the driver for merging into a semi truck that from my understanding was clearly visible.

The feature is called “Autopilot”, meaning that the car automatically pilots itself, rather than using a human pilot. The definition of autopilot is literally “a device for keeping an aircraft or other vehicle on a set course without the intervention of the pilot.” I’m not sure how he could have more explicitly misrepresented the product.

That has been a feature in all of their competitors for 10+ years.

It would definitely stop pretty much any counterfeit if they added some rudimentary depth data into the image format as well, within the signed contents. That way simply taking a picture of a monitor would be obviously detectable, and not alterable without removing the signing. It wouldn’t have to be a high resolution depth map at all either.

I disagree. Nationalizing Twitter is definitely idealistic thinking, but adding some small contingencies to the deal definitely is not, and is actually pretty standard in large mergers, to maintain stability.

That’s a fair argument, and to an extent I agree. That said, I don’t think firebombing something hundreds of millions depend on is not the ideal solution, and it could have been handled differently, like by adding contingencies, for example. Or working in some form of transition period.

I have morals that I will not violate. Money does not matter to me beyond enough to comfortably live on my own (and I have reached that point already). I give the rest away to people in need, because that’s how my moral system works. You’re welcome to think whatever you want about hypotheticals, but in this case it doesn’t matter if they sold or not. The people making this deal would have been obscenely rich either way. At a certain point, money is nothing more than bragging about a big number, your life doesn’t get materially different. If your moral system allows for that kind of action, good for you I suppose, but I can assure you its far from a universal perspective.

Responsible financially, as agents of the corporation, sure. And I understand why they did it. Morally though (and I would argue civilly) it was wildly irresponsible. Thousands of people lost their jobs, hundreds of people are now forced to work at Elons insane business under threat of deportation if their visa is invalidated, and hundreds of millions lost a trusted, dependable direct link to governments, public figures, and other notable people. The world is a worse place for having let this deal happen. What is responsible financially is often irresponsible in pretty much every other way, and I wish this perspective was represented more.

As a shareholder in a number of other large corporations, I would actively like for buy-outs like this one to fail, even if it would make me a quick buck now, even if that quick buck is a lot. I much prefer stability to major erratic changes, even when they benefit me.

I can empathize with that, but that is sorta the problem to me. He frames himself as an authority on a lot of these subjects, and then goes on to demonstrate a clear lack of understanding. Those who know better can take his bad advice as purely entertainment, but to those who don’t, he’s misleading consumers, and potentially changing their purchasing decisions as a result. You can be a tongue and cheek entertainer with a theme, or you can be a journalistic authority, but it is wildly irresponsible (in my opinion) to try to be both at the same time. Especially when he has a demonstrable track record of misleading consumers with his lack of understanding. Its not on any of his viewers or fans that they were mislead, it’s on him for making the waters murky with inadequate experience, biased reviewing, unclear context, and conflicts of interest.

He has the technical competency of your average best buy employee. Not even geek squad, just like a normal employee. Just look at their channel, they constantly make videos about their mission critical servers breaking.

I am an American and I use it religiously for the record. Especially for version numbers. Major.minor.year.month.day.hour.minute-commit. It sorts easy, is specific, intuitive, and makes it clear which version you’re using/working on.

This. Many of the people who still work there have no other choice. Their citizenship is tied to their employer. I feel sympathy for them.

Logically, if you’re a candidate from any party, that knows they won’t be around in a decade’s time, what incentive, responsibility, or obligation do you REALLY have to do what’s best for ALL citizens— Including those who’ll be around for a few more decades. Especially regarding decisions with society-changing implications that’ll impact generations of change. It’s such a staggering conflict of interest that it’s not reasonable to expect any politician to set it aside.

That is even setting aside the obvious statistical likelihood that people over the age of 65 are significantly more likely to contract ailments that will impair their judgement and therefore their ability to do their job like Alzheimers (the exact same parroted reason for the minimum age requirement, that young people’s brains are not fully developed, and therefore are not able to perform the job adequately). If we’re going to arbitrarily set a minimum, we should be obligated to set a maximum.