If (and that if is doing so much heavy lifting) they actually were probing their own AI this way, your point might be valid. But doing it secretly while still saying that AI is safe to use (like so many AI companies have done) is disingenuous.
What the article says is that Meta was directing contractors to do this to their competitors AI.
Who pays the fine when your kid gets a ticket on a leaners permit?
Do you see where I'm going with this. Either the government is going to actually put the wok in to enforce a common sense law the easiest way they can, or they're going to do what they've been doing and get the results they've been getting while using it for their ulterior motive which is to surveil the general population.
Let's try again. Let's say your kid gets ahold of spray paint and vandalizes some property. Many kids and parents have been held accountable in that situation and the risk isn't really the point, it's just moving goal posts.
The point is that as a parent you are responsible for the safety and well being of your child. Which proves you can be held accountable.
If your child gets hold of a weapon and hurts themselves or someone else then you are liable. I don't really see how this is much different but I'm all ears.
And yes, I am a parent who's kid doesn't have social media. And yes, I am aware that we need to be educating parents on how to use parental controls and enforcing their use (on platform side as well as in the home).
In 2018, the European Commission slapped Google with the record-breaking penalty on the grounds that it abused Android's mobile dominance to give unfair advantage to its own apps via pre-installation deals with smartphone makers.
GOOD. But still basically chump change if it's spread out over years.
And the lack of a requirement for a subscription service which means the actual cost of the PlayStation 6 over a 7 year life span is something like $1800. That's assuming the cost of a monthly PlayStation plus membership doesn't go up and they continue to subsidize the hardware by selling it at cost. And it doesn't include buying games.
I think I didn't make it clear but as of 2025 they sold 7 million units.
There's conflicting information about whether they sold 7 million pairs in 2025 and more in 2023/2024 which could equal 10 million pairs though. But I haven't found anything yet that says they've sold 10 million pairs in plain language.
Likely to still be used in a maintenance or emergency situation where the electronics are dead. If the vehicle has to be moved and a winch isn't available a brake is pretty much a necessity. Anyone who's had to push a car out of a lane of travel knows this.
The brake lever is a parking brake. It's usually (in older cars that don't have an electronic park brake) a cable actuation of the brake meant to keep your car from rolling away if the parking pawl fails. It's not the same as the hydraulic braking you'd do with a pedal (and what you'd want in the event of an emergency braking situation). Getting rid of it is beyond foolish.
I'll do you one better. Our laws about lobbying need a significant overhaul, so that's at least part of the problem. But also it can be more than one thing at a time.
I feel like the strictly enforced cell phone laws are also strictly enforced in America. I think it really is just down to how big vehicles are here and how bad the sight distance is in those larger vehicles, combined with municipalities not investing in infrastructure that prevents or mitigates crashes and pedestrian fatalities. There was recently an article about a town that did do this and hasn't had a pedestrian fatality in like a decade here in the US and I think that's proof of what I'm saying.
They are wrong but there is a grain of truth to this. NTSA regulations about fuel efficiency and emissions are part of the reason that car manufacturers made vehicles bigger and more expensive. It is significantly harder to meet emissions standards and fuel efficiency standards in the US in a sedan or small compact car and on top of that car manufacturers know that people aren't generally buying compact cars for $80-150K so it's a win win for them. It's greed, and them gaming the system in order to use the fact that larger vehicles aren't beholden to the same emissions standards or fuel efficiency standards. So car companies convinced consumers they don't want small cars, that instead they want SUVs and trucks and perhaps crossovers. And they lobbied to game the system and to continue pocketing money doing it.
You left reddit because you didn't like the users. I left reddit because I didn't like the corpo BS and the company trying to monetize what the users built. We are not the same.
If you want the things you posted about to be different, go roll your own.
So, we have to convince people not of the "morality" of whatever action we want them to take, but the strategic importance of the action. To do that you have to have an action in mind and I see these two things as the stumbling block most people trip over on a lot of the time on most issues.
Once you have an aim to achieve and you have convinced people of its strategic importance, you just need them to stay on the same page and working in the same direction.
If (and that if is doing so much heavy lifting) they actually were probing their own AI this way, your point might be valid. But doing it secretly while still saying that AI is safe to use (like so many AI companies have done) is disingenuous.
What the article says is that Meta was directing contractors to do this to their competitors AI.