Ok, I watched the video, and it’s not at all as you describe. Some guy walks closely by the bodyguard, and the bodyguard responds by shoving them through a display stand of products and onto the ground. The bodyguard was clearly the instigator of violence.
Maybe the guy said nasty stuff to the bodyguard, but I saw no contact or physical threat. It’s only bad bodyguards and bouncers that get into fights. Good ones deescalate instead, just to avoid this sort of thing, because they realize they’re guarding a political reputation as well as a person.
At the 0:10s mark of the video, the ex-stabber makes a move on the mayor and gets in the bodyguard's face, trading words. The SFChronicle reporter noted that critical detail you've overlooked.
Seeing the threat depends on one's bias. The mob that hates police and/or the mayor (he's jewish, billionaire, etc) can't see it, because all violence is supposedly the system's fault. Verbal threats are only real if the system does it.
For me, I lived next to the Tenderloin for two years & was threatened at knife-point by a nearby homeless. I think the risk warrants the shove. Maybe if the bodyguard hadn't shoved, the mayor would be fine. Or maybe the mob would have been much, much happier that day.
I’ll repeat my point that a good bodyguard stops shit rather than starting it. That idiot meatsack shouldn’t have been let anywhere near a bodyguard job. He failed at every aspect of the role, including getting his ass kicked.
Your continued reference to “ex-stabber” and the like make much of your dialog sound like a political dog whistle. E.g., repeated caricatures of opposition, like “all violence is supposedly the system’s fault.” It makes it rather exhausting to try to engage with good faith.
A devil with a giant bare ass flinging pork butts and taters with a catapult to an anthromorphised cow and a chicken, whose parents are only pairs of legs.
”We get training data.” E.g., photos of your children, an inventory of your books, the contents of your medicine cabinet. They may not have plans to sell this stuff, but whoever acquires them certainly will.
Exactly and any "future robots" that are actually capable of cleaning your home will be doing the same thing. It'd be streaming 24/7 audio/video/sensor data of everyone and everything in your home back to the company where all of it will be analyzed and used to make assumptions about you and your family which will be sold and resold.
At this point I wouldn't allow an internet connected roomba into my home, I'm sure as hell not going to let a robot maid in.
I’m a little more hopeful that the future will allow for local (network free) frontier AI technology.
Being that I’m a tech enthusiast and computer science nerd I tend to live less on the bleeding edge of technology because of privacy infringing hardware. Take for example meta glasses. So many people have adopted them because they don’t care about privacy as much as I do. So they get to live with the latest and greatest.
Though, running a local LLM on my laptop (that is state of the art) has made me a little more hopeful that the future is around the corner. Who would have thought that one day we could run advanced AI on a laptop that’s able to do RAG and CAG.
I fully agree that the only hope is offline/open source systems that we can verify are working for us and not anyone else. The more complex the hardware is the more difficult it'll be to keep them safe. To avoid bugging my home it's easy enough to open up my PS5 controllers to pull the two microphones out, but I imagine it'll be a lot more work to make sure there are no radios connected to a SoC tucked away somewhere in a household robot.
I'm not sure I'd call meta glasses the "latest and greatest". Even if there were no privacy concerns I wouldn't feel left out when it comes to giving facebook the ability to plaster ads on every surface in your field of vision. The tech has a lot of potential, but the product people are using today is trash I feel better off without.
I think an interesting case would be if the data was provided to law enforcement directly or indirectly and they use it to gain access to a home if they see drug paraphernalia crack pipe or other items of interest illegal weapons under exigent circumstances or similar laws. Autonomous robots could become the ultimate snitch.
Would a robot report a wife beater? Child abuser? Could a robot legally physically intervene if a human cries for help from another human? Will the robots be hacker proof? Will robots assassinate people in their sleep?
Considering we already have Apple wanting to scan your devices for whatever their AI thinks is child porn we're heading in that direction. There was one report of Amazon Echo reporting a domestic violence situation to 911. The Sheriff said that it happened, Amazon said that it didn't but failed to explain how the 911 call happened saying that the echo isn't even capable of calling 911 although it can place phone calls, and Alexa Emergency Assist and Echo Connect are/were both capable of reaching 911. (https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/amazon-alexa-c...). If one of those services wasn't in use, I'd guess an employee was listening and called putting amazon into damage control mode.
My thought process around such things is that tech follows the same rules as the pirate code. Tech will do what tech can do until executive bonuses are repeatedly impacted. As such I think it's best to just keep that stuff away from humans and homes until laws and case law evolves or devolves into whatever it will ultimately become.
I submitted a poll [1] on this and a few people here would permit these bots in their homes. I also asked people in my local community and their answer was a resounding no.
They might for a while. However it is somewhat likely that the courts will shut this down as an unreasonable search since no probable cause existed. Though if the beating is bad enough to require hospitalization and the robot calls 911 to get that, the rest of the evidence will be admitted in that case, but only because the robot has reason to call 911, and in turn it was an emergency search.
there are lots of different ways to take this, have fun arguing about the different edge cases and what the constitution (notice that I did not specify which constitution - there are many countries with different ones and different courts!) says.
I wonder how long it will be before we see politician/celebrity houses with full 3d walkthroughs made from gaussian splats that source from this kind of "every type of interior in the world" mass data set. I wonder if that will prompt some kind of legislative action against this type of service.
your photos of your kids, your books, and the contents of your medicine cabinet are already in a bunch of giant corporations' databases attributed to you...
Government-issued IDs work and human verification of them is largely successful. This is not about correct verification, it’s about cheap machine-based verification. The dehumanization of it is part of how they plan to make money.
So yes verification is needed. We can do that just fine without more facial recognition intruding into everyday affairs.
I was trying to think what the least intrusive option here would be. You need to verify that the patient has ID matching their name and face, which could be done offline by a notary or other trusted party if a patient prefers.
But you also need to confirm the person showing up for the online sessions is actually the verified patient, and I'm not sure how you do that to maximize privacy. I guess you could take a photo at the in-person verification, have the medical provider sign off that it's the same person as their patient, and then destroy the photo?
I definitely know people who prefer online therapy because they have a busy schedule or live far from a therapist who meets their needs (e.g., people in rural areas).
Some people also prefer online visits for other care, usually things they can self-diagnose: a recurring sinus infection, erectile dysfunction, hair loss, etc.
You sound condescending but each of those substances is currently positively life changing to MILLIONS of people every day.
Viagra can give you your sex life back, ozempic can give you a healthy body again and ketamin and legal meth can return you to being a functional and happy human.
and each of these substances is widely mis-prescribed, abused and has huge illegal markets. Just because the OP obviously referred to this scenario doesn't mean they discounted your interpretation of big pharma. Also since you want to promote a super narrow perspective, Ozempic is a type-2 diabetes drug that has pivoted to the more lucrative weight-lose market and Viagra a pretty ho-hum hypertension drug that makes a better boner pill, so your takes are technically "side-effects"
> Dayton is not the first city to cover its Flock cameras with trash bags because they can’t figure out how to immediately terminate the use of the cameras. Late last year, the city of Evanston, Illinois also covered its cameras with trash bags while it was waiting for the company to remove them from the city.
We were just discussing “1984” and “We” a few days ago, books primarily about mass surveillance and the attendant harms. Neither of those books saw profit motive, though, they were all about top-down political power making use of surveillance.
I suppose at the time of reading those I thought that would be the origin — a government decides and starts putting up cameras, like London. A for-profit entity festooning the landscape with these things, though, damn. Clearly the powers-that-be can do the math on how easy it is exfiltrate this data from private to government hands. This sympathetic cooperation between governments and corps smells very much like early fascism to me.
Teachers don’t make those decisions, school boards do. School boards are elected or appointed political entities.
Teachers are humans just like you, and like or dislike work for the same reasons you do, including your unoriginal display of classic American anti-intellectualism.
School boards to do not set curriculum or methods of instruction. At best they hire and fire the administration team. But even those positions usually have tenure.
So even a willing school board is unable to do more than rubber stamp the status quo.
Yes, preach it! But … I think in fact it does make a huge difference economically. I don’t know what the bill of materials is, but imagine the difference between wiring into place (a) a touch screen, or (b) 40 physical controls.
I believe another motivation for manufacturers is that they can turn the car’s UI into a software problem, which from a human-centered design perspective means that they can throw it in the trash and never spend a dime on it.
Ferrari clearly aren’t doing it to save costs. I don’t think they’re doing it for principled driver-centered reasons, either, but more because the market expects it. Cars are appliances, and appliances are generally built to be sold (i.e., to look good) rather than to be used. Microwaves, washers, cars — the same for all of them.
The design exterior looks glued together from more interesting electric cars, so no surprise the interior does too.
EDIT: I just learned that Jony Ive did the interior. Further proof that without Steve Jobs goading him, Ive is just a stylist.
“In all that time, I’ve never met a single person who sincerely wanted more dailies, syncs, and meetings.” Oh, I guarantee that OP has met these people, and that they have told him this multiple times in ways that he does not understand.
I can easily list in my head many people I’ve worked with who’ve expressed dissatisfaction at the lack of regular contact with their coworkers. I’ve seen this universally across engineers, designers, sales people … and yes, managers and recruiters. (Not as often as I’ve heard “We have too _many_ meetings,” I’ll grant you).
If you claim only to have seen this in those limited roles then I still believe that you are filtering your inputs.
Maybe the guy said nasty stuff to the bodyguard, but I saw no contact or physical threat. It’s only bad bodyguards and bouncers that get into fights. Good ones deescalate instead, just to avoid this sort of thing, because they realize they’re guarding a political reputation as well as a person.
reply