SirEDCaLot

joined 1 year ago
[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 2 points 6 months ago

One could hope but I don't think it's likely.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 51 points 6 months ago (3 children)

This thing is way too half baked to be in production. A day or two ago somebody asked Google how to deal with depression and the stupid AI recommended they jump off the Golden Gate Bridge because apparently some redditor had said that at some point. The answers are so hilariously wrong as to go beyond funny and into dangerous.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today -3 points 6 months ago

Comparing Tesla with Waymo is stupid. They are doing fundamentally different things, and people like this author don't realize that. Waymo's technology, like a few self-driving products from Ford or GM, rely on having a centimeter level 3D scan of the road ahead of time. This allows a crap ton of pre-processing so fewer decisions need to be made in the car. It's a developmental shortcut, but it also means their cars will only work on roads that have been scanned and processed and approved ahead of time. Tesla's system doesn't pre scan roads. It makes all the decisions on the fly based solely on what the car is seeing as it drives. That means that it can theoretically work on any road, in any situation, without advance preparation.

Tesla's approach tackles a MUCH harder problem. And that must be considered when comparing the two technologies.

Otherwise it's like looking at two people at the gym, William lifts 25lb weights and can now lift them 10 times, Tom lifts 250 lb weights and can now lift them 9 times, and saying that William is in better shape than Tom because he can do more reps. No, Tom is in better shape because he is lifting a lot more weight. Even though he can't lift it as many times, he's doing a lot more work in his workout.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 1 points 6 months ago

If a company ruins people's lives, I'm okay with them disappearing and all their investors losing their shirts.

I agree that a company that can't afford to pay for the damage it is causing is doing more harm than help and should go away.

What I think we can both absolutely agree on, is that the current system where companies forcibly collect all kinds of information on people, don't take security seriously, get breached, and the only punishment that happens is a few million dollars fine they can just write a check for and everyone affected gets a year of credit monitoring, is a broken system. In many of these breaches, they happen because the data was stored so poorly one could make a serious argument for gross negligence. When a company does this and the punishment is a wrist slap, I have a problem with that. It becomes a cost of doing business, not something company management is actually afraid of.

Also, as somebody who actually works in IT, I can tell you cyber insurance is a thing. For small businesses it covers this sort of breach. When you sign up for it they send you a whole questionnaire that asks about your security practices. It's all boilerplate bullshit. Real cybersecurity involves an insane amount of complexity and required understanding at every level, and the insurance questionnaire is like do you use multi-factor authentication for your email y/n?. If you check no you get a higher insurance premium.

Perhaps a solution would be a mandatory payment of $250 per person made directly to that person if their information is breached. And if the company fails to report it within 60 days, it triples. If the company intentionally conceals it, it quadruples. And should the company go bankrupt and liquidate, these payments to users will be considered the primary creditor and take priority over all others. So no more of this '$10 discount on your next purchase and a year of credit monitoring' class action settlements, put some real fucking teeth in a law. People would get some real compensation. And personal information would no longer be seen as a $20/person asset but rather as a potentially destroy the company liability.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Oh I'm sure there would be insurance for that, but it would be expensive. It would dramatically reduce the amount of overall investment in the nation. That is a very bad thing, it would slow down the rate of our economy and innovation. Don't get me wrong, the current setup where companies treat your data like an asset and then lose it and nothing happens is broken. There need to be stiff penalties for it. Corporate death penalty even, especially with an ending of all too big to fail. I'm talking penalties scary to the point that whatever profit could be made from your personal information isn't worth the risk of having it, companies are scared to collect info. This would especially be true if there is negligence involved, like when companies put their databases on open S3 buckets. Companies should be scared shitless of that. But destroying our system of investment is not the answer.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 1 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Because it would greatly increase the cost and risk of investment. Think not just for billionaires, but for anybody. Imagine somebody buys a couple tens of thousands of dollars of a stock as part of their retirement, that company does something bad, and now not only do they lose their investment but they lose the rest of their retirement also.

I am all for wiping out shareholders, especially big ones, when a company does something super stupid. There should be an incentive for shareholders to hold companies they invest in accountable.

But suggesting that company owners become personally liable for the actions of those companies, especially when those equity owners have little or no control over the decisions of the company, that is a recipe for disaster.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 2 points 6 months ago (6 children)

Disagree. Breaking the corporate veil would have a whole lot of unintended consequences and would basically kill investment as a concept. I agree we need to do more about corporations that violate the law with impunity and get wrist slaps. I don't think that's it.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 3 points 6 months ago

Yup. We need more of the corporate death penalty. And when corporations are so big that 'killing' them would harm the economy, I argue we're back to too big to fail. Maybe the answer is giant fines, and if the company can't pay, wipe out the largest shareholders and then resell the stock over time. Make people's personal information a giant hot potato that nobody wants to be holding.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 26 points 6 months ago (10 children)

I agree. Even at $120 each. 120 times tens of millions is serious fucking cash. We need to have a couple of big companies go bankrupt over this shit. Then maybe they will start taking it seriously. Perhaps at that point maintaining personal data on people will be seen as a liability rather than an asset. And that's what we really need.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Oh the plane will be fine. Being a whistleblower is very stressful though. I would not be at all surprised if many if not all of them find it just too hard to go on and end up committing suicide by shooting themselves twice in the back of the head before jumping off a building.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 15 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah people who really wanted 11 back in the beginning found an easy process to bypass the check during the install. 11 works fine without it.

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 27 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Just disable TPM in your BIOS if you have that option. Win 11 needs modern TPM so it won't upgrade you if you don't have one.

view more: ‹ prev next ›