deleted by creator

This, plus just how egregious was it?

No one is wanting to read these messages like they’re 50 Shades of Grey or anything like that. Well, there’s probably somebody but that’s not why most want to see it. Clearly it was not bad enough to get the police involved at the time, so we’re talking less than To Catch A Predator.

Ignoring the age difference for a second, because that part is not relevant to my specific point here… What some people consider flirty, others consider creepy. On a similar note, the same comment coming from a person someone considers attractive and from someone they find ugly often has a completely different reaction.

Doc says that it crossed a line, that’s not under debate by anyone at this point. He says there were no pictures, etc. exchanged, just messages and there was no intent to meet up or anything like that. On the other side one of the original tweets claimed they were sexting. Peoples definitions of sexting can vary dramatically as well.

So clearly the messages went over the line of being inappropriate, no argument there from anyone paying attention, but how far over that line was it? Were they truly explicit messages, or just inappropriate within the context of a 35 year old talking to a minor?

It’s an officially recognized spec, so Apple will ignore it as long as they can. Until they can find a way to make money from it or spin marketing as if it’s some miraculous new invention of theirs, for something that should just be how it’s done.

So the only products that met the budget actually approved by management.

It wasn’t just “the corpos”, you can basically tie changes to the copyright system back to Disney trying to maintain a strangle hold on their fucking mouse.

https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/mickey/

That depends on if you see the current copyright system as far to start with. The current system is a far cry from how it was created and was co-opted by companies like Disney to maintain monopolies on their IP for MUCH longer than the system was supposed to protect.

That left. And far as I remember it wasn’t a situation of being pushed out, he left on his own. Probably because he disagreed with everyone else about something.

Ironically with all the hubbub about Sam Altman, it seems like he somehow might have not been the clear worst of the bunch. Somehow.

Sort of. It’s there if you already had it. Otherwise it’s gone on new vehicles.

My model 3 still has it listed.

Almost like instead of relying on faulty AI predictions, they can just include that as a bio and search option. No bullshit AI necessary.

Make sure you fill out that FTC form if you’re located in the US.

Sounds like the shareholders need to do a little more than propose. The company does work for them after all. They keep talking about shareholder value to justify the focus on profits above all else.

Here the shareholders are literally saying they value these things specifically above general profit motives, and the company is responding with what amounts to “fuck you”.

Google runs passive A/B testing all the time.

If you’re using a Google service there’s a 99% chance you’re part of some sort of internal test of changes.

And that’s exactly why it will never be the year of the Linux desktop… you know, the claim of this entire post.

Unless Linux appeals to the lowest common denominator, like Windows, it will never become a major replacement.

This is exactly the kind of issue that the average person might deal with, or it will be a deal breaker and they’ll never try again. Even if you can customize something via a config file, the average user will never do that. If there is no easy GUI in a normal location (like system settings) for something they want to adjust, it might as well not exist.

Average users either will accept all the inconveniences, or none. If it is more inconvenient than what they are used to right off the bat, they will go back and never try again.

Until something breaks, or doesn’t have a GUI. The average user seeing a terminal means they will abandon it. And even if they are willing to handle a terminal to fix an issue, the toxic community members that flock to be the first to respond condescendingly to new users will turn them away permanently.

Linux communities have some of the most helpful users, but they also have people worse than a League of Legends game. And all it takes is one of them to turn the average person away forever.

They have already started their own platform, Floatplane. And other creators are on it as well.

Simple fact is though, YouTube is still king, and so leaving YouTube entirely isn’t tenable at this point. But they are already working on alternatives.

Actually, it said Full Self Driving (BETA) until it was updated to (Supervised) recently.

If anything, the beta qualifier is actually better than just saying supervised since that term means not complete and still being developed.

Merit to continue just means it’s not clearly a bullshit lawsuit that should be thrown out to avoid wasting court time. Your linked lawsuit also is not about whether someone is legally responsible for a vehicle driving itself, it is again about the marketing.

I don’t give a shit whether their marketing is a lie. Marketing is not the issue at hand, as much as you all want it to be for whatever reason instead of actually blaming the shitty drivers. It has no bearing on whether someone is responsible for the vehicle they are in the driver seat of hitting something or someone.

Why do you not want to put any blame on these drivers? Drivers that ignore the warning when they turned on the function in the first place and that warns them every time they turn it on to still pay attention. Why are you so insistent that the blame should be on Tesla because of what they call it?

Makes me start to think you’re that type of driver and trying to justify your belief that you shouldn’t be responsible for the actions of a 2 ton murder machine traveling at high speed that you are in control of.

So tired of the same arguments. They don’t mean anything in the real world. Complain all you want about what the shit is called, it makes no real world difference.

Legally, the driver is responsible for the fucking vehicle and these articles and comments like yours just give the impression you think they shouldn’t be responsible because of what it’s called. You’re giving shitty drivers a pass because they’re actively being stupid and you don’t like what Tesla names the software. That is the stupidest take in the world.

Go ahead in a court of law and claim you are not responsible for an accident that happens while FSD is activated and let’s see whether the name matters for your liability.

Regardless of the naming, because everyone gets so stuck on fucking names and seems to ignore everything else because that makes for a quick comment with a ton of votes and feel good bullshit.

It is sold as a work in progress piece of software that is constantly being updated and still needs to be supervised. It has a ton of warnings about it’s capabilities, and lack thereof when activating it. There is no question when actually setting up FSD in the vehicle that it is something still in testing and not to be treated as a full replacement for paying attention. It constantly watches you and will warn you if you aren’t paying active attention for too long. If you ignore those warnings enough it will deactivate itself, forcing you to drive, and with enough deactivation will remove the capability entirely.

Image of the activation screen.

Image of the free trial page for those that have not purchased it, thereby avoiding notes on the standard sales pages

They’ve even updated the setting in the vehicle to be more specific, showing it as “Full Self-Driving (Supervised)”…
https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/modely/en_us/GUID-2CB60804-9CEA-4F4B-8B04-09B991368DC5.html

All of these reported situations are from people actively ignoring numerous safety and attention warnings, yet no one seems to ever put any blame on the driver in comments or articles. It’s always about blaming everything on Tesla when they’re actively telling every driver that it needs to be supervised because it will make mistakes.