I can give you the Model Y but take a look at the rest of the lineup compared to when they were first released. Hell, you're in this very post calling the S/X old.
I won't disagree that the people inside the system are making it worse but the system is currently setup to incentivize bad behavior.
- Overly broad qualified immunity
- The power of the police unions
- Lawsuit settlements coming out of public funds
- Collusion between prosecutors' and the police
These are all issues that need to be resolved to restore the sanity in policing.
At the federal level, the FBI needs to be reigned in...somehow. They all to often work outside the bounds of their defined role and powers. This isn't a new problem and one could argue it has been an issue since the beginning.
I would disagree to a certain extent. "Law enforcement is not your friend" is a good mindset as a citizen. You should never hand them information without a lawyer and you should always push for oversight.
I agree that the "same at it ever was and always will be" attitude isn't great. It's defeatist and I choose not to live my life that way, even if it would be much easier mentally.
I think part of the reason I see this attitude so often is that, especially since 9/11, a large portion of the US population has decided that the police and military are infallible and should be trusted completely, so any large-scale attempt at reform runs into these unwavering supporters (and, in the case of the police, their unions).
The best part is that, in trying to comply with this guidance, the government chose Telemessage to provide the message archiving required by the Federal Records Act.
The only problem is that Telemessage was wildly insecure and was transmitting/storing message archives without any encryption.
AI is not unique in this regard. We just saw the same thing with the crypto/blockchain nonsense.
Regulation lags so far behind that you can get away with bad behavior long enough that, by the time regulation catches up, you can buy your way out of consequences.
That's great but they could have been honest up-front and said "The plan is that this is eventually fully-automated but we estimate that it needs supervised training for X amount of time in order to handle Y% of transactions automatically".
But this is tech and you just lie because hardly anyone in the investor class knows enough to call you out on it or they are just going with the lie to make a buck off of other rubes.
Privacy concerns aside, I thought it was a cool project. I agree that “convenience store” was probably not the best target but I think it was an effective enough proof of concept (creating a decent sized chain of them probably wasn’t the best idea) . I’ve seen the system used more effectively in smaller situations like stadium concessions, where the duration of the transactions needs to be very short to facilitate throughout.
Their initial advertising claimed near full automation by their "AI" system when, in reality, they had people manually handling around 70% of the transactions.
I get that this is a message board for YC, so lying about your company's tech is considered almost a virtue but that is an unreasonably big lie to tell without getting your hand-slapped by some regulatory body or investor backlash.
You mean the ones that we had the ability to remove in previous administrations without the need for harassing and assaulting non-criminals and citizens on the street?
As for the list, do you think this DHS compiles a list of its fuckups and publishes it? I can get you some news articles if you’d like.
This is a great paper but, in my experience, most people in tech love this paper because it allows them to say "To hell with pursuing reality. Here is MY reality".
>@dang and other mods - when ICE abduct your kids on the way home from school, kick in your door and shoot people in your street will you feel proud of your cowardly behaviour here?
It won't happen to them because their boss (Garry Tan) is associated with the power behind the thrown (Peter Thiel).
The Libertarian Party does not put all of those caveats on their stance and you sure as hell didn't in your polemic post.
Your argument is nothing but pedantry anyway. The libertarian stance is that most immigration laws should be abolished. Whether or not the books on the laws reflect their stance doesn't change that is their stance. They advocate for open boarders and migration free from government interference.
Oh buddy. I don't think that's the word you want to use here.