SirEDCaLot

Of course they can't. It's gotten so bad they ship their TVs with antivirus on them. The only reason anyone uses their Android phones is they have the best hardware, most of their add-on software is just useless gimmicks people turn off. Tizen on watches was never going to work. Apple has a large enough ecosystem to attract app developers. Google has a large enough ecosystem to attract app developers. Samsung does not. Smartest thing they could do now is shut down their remaining software development. Ship the TVs with vanilla Google OS like LG, strip the bloatware off their phones, etc. They would lose face but their products would become way better.

I know, right? This seems so fucking obvious to me. Maybe I'm just old school, but I still believe if you come out with a new product and it sucks you should pull it from shelves and go back to the older better one that people liked before you drive all your customers away.

That doesn't seem to be the attitude of modern tech tho, SOP now seems to be if you come up with a new version and it sucks and everybody hates it, you double down, keep telling people why it's actually better and your customers don't know what they want and refuse to change course until either you fix it or all your customers leave. This apparently is better in some way. Not sure how, but most of the companies seem to be doing it.

My thought exactly. If this was back in like 2010, it would be a real oh shit moment, The key to the kingdom has been leaked. Now I don't think anybody really cares other than SEO spammers who will game the system even more than they already are.

Google search is crap and has been crap for some time. Not sure any others are better. But it started going downhill with the Google Plus social network, when they removed "+" as a search operator so you could better search for 'Google+' that was the first time they messed with Search to further some other business goal. It wasn't the last time. Back when Google was good, they publicly said their goal was to get you off their site as fast as possible. Now the results reek of engagement algorithm bullshit.

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

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.

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.

Sounds good to me. You should also look into cryonics. Basically you sign up with a company and donate your body to them, when you die they pump you full of antifreeze and then vitrify you in liquid nitrogen. Right now there's no way to recover from it, the antifreeze is toxic and we don't yet know how to undo the cell damage from freezing. But the idea is someday in the future we will figure those things out, and then hopefully be able to thaw the frozen dead person, fix the damage caused by the freezing process, fix whatever problem killed them in the first place, and reanimate them.

For a lower fee, they will cut off your head and just freeze that. Idea being that someday in the future they will be able to transplant your brain into an artificially created body.

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.

In fairness, the scan required such astronomical resources because of how they were scanning it. They took the cubic millimeter chunk and cut it into 5,000 super thin flat slices and then did extremely high detail scans of each slice. That's why they needed AI, to try and piece those flat layers back together into some sort of 3D structure.

Once they have the 3D structure, the scans are useless and can be deleted.

In time it should be possible to scan the tissue and get the 3D structure without such extreme data use.

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.

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.

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.