godwinson__4-8

Good point, I don't have a kid and would have never thought of that as something that system was hedging against. I'm not sure it changes my mind overall (I think also this particular implementation was still rather clumsy) but it does at least make that feature far more defensible in theory.

Is it Jane Street where they have an internal market so when a stakeholder wants something it's like they make a bid/execute a trade? If their ask ends up creating a loss goodbye buying power until you earn it back.

It feels like making these sorts of systems exist outside of the periphery would be good for everyone.

How many times have politicians for example wasted your time with promises and asks and rhetoric with no follow through? Not unlike some "stakeholders" I know. It's called "office politics" for a reason. What if they were punished for this by some system?

It feels like sitting there while stakeholders yap is not so different than electing a new rep every two years and hoping something changes. The fundamental setup is broken in a world with ever accelerating growth in complexity. Doing it in this way also would probably trend to enforcing rigor in the original ask. A big problem with stakeholders is they don't really know what they want, like politicians who make economic promises yet never show their work before showing up and asking for your vote.

If you can, wait for a Slate. It's not just cheap for brand new it's a company working hard to move the auto industry in an actually positive direction. I hope to make it my next car as well.

The idea of cheap, modular base and a focus on user accessibility/customization is in my view a very cool and sorely needed model in an industry that looks more about shoving in features, consolidation and ever increasing costs and complexity. Not to mention the rampant protectionism in the United States because Musk is terrified of Chinese EVs.

These are some good concrete answers on proposed changes, thanks.

Sounds like things to be codified in statutory regulations. I suspect some of these must exist in bills somewhere, will enjoy checking on that later. Have a good day!

Cars seem so full of gimmicky features these days. A friend's car yesterday stopped us when exiting because it thought we left behind belongings in the back seat - it was just an empty package. That was not something I would have ever thought a car would flag. It's not that fancy of a car (entry level SUV) but it is fairly new, it just kind of bothered me.

One reason I hope Slate does well - newer cars have too much useless tech across the board. At least with a sports car the gimmicks are part of the appeal. Entry level new cars should be simpler, modular, and cheaper. Just let me drive and stop trying to be so helpful.

> If the TOS changes you should be automatically opted out until you explicitly accept the new agreement

Does it not work this way? Don't the terms you sign often say something like these terms can be updated at any time? Yet they still often want you to agree to the new terms to proceed, right?

> That way if you stop using the service because of the new TOS, it actually means your old activity is still bound by the previous TOS not the new one.

Are you suggesting a statutory remedy? What is the average diff of a terms change? Are they really that meaningful? I would think the scope of what they can actually change is controlled by various other areas of law. If you don't accept the new terms are you concerned your old data is going to be used in a new way, while you remain opted out of the future? Is that actually how it works? It feels like it would not, which I gather is why they often want you to explicitly accept the new terms.

Once again it would be helpful if a specific change or event was brought up here that better explained your concerns. I feel like there are times when I am forced to agree to new terms to continue using the service, and other times where it feels like I am not. I would suspect this relates to some controlling law regarding the nature of the update itself, as not all updates are equally meaningful?

How else would you "opt out"? You want to have your cake and eat it too?

Most people don't care about the Terms of Service. Would you have a more positive assessment of the judicial system if it infantilized its citizens? If someone doesn't read it the first time or ignores an email what is the system supposed to do? Stand over your shoulder and make you read it? Do you want citizens to be prosecuted for signing things on the theory they didn't actually read them?

What number of people actually read the terms, actually read the new terms, decide they don't like the new terms, but after caring this much decide they don't want to "opt out" (I'm still not clear what remedy you want to invent for this)? Do you think this number is so high that you should be shocked that for some reason this is not a priority? I'm not even sure you've actually articulated a problem.

Is there a Terms of Service change you find particularly offensive that might better explain your concerns here? If so, I would be interested to hear you describe it with greater specificity.

Scary in what sense?

Those are certainly among the most interesting engineers. For example, what were the American Founding Fathers, if not "legal engineers" (and certainly many of them were also "financial engineers", given this was one of their most pressing needs).

I guess if you find yourself preferring the status quo all the time they might be scary but given I can't think of any time in history where the status quo was totally desirable I'm not sure what there is to be scared of exactly.

Could you be more specific?

Common enough sadly when the national elections are close and swing based on in some cases less than 100,000 votes in a handful of swing states.

I'm speaking about the Electoral College for President, which is rather notorious for making only a small fraction of the overall electorate count.

Yep, same thing with a contractor or your car guy or even your lawyer.

If you care about something, take in interest in it and learn to advocate for it. Don't conflate handing someone money with making them care about you.

Do also remember though that more people are struggling than you probably realize. That includes the people you are paying. The world is not easy right now, but it rarely has been. I'm not religious, but the concept of grace does have an appeal.

Ultimately, I find thinking macro helps. Realizing it often doesn't matter or would create an unnecessary trade off can help. Advocate. But pick your battles. More and more of us are running on empty, part of taking care of yourself is learning what to care about and what to let go.

This is all professionals.

Actual expertise, competence and integrity is typically extremely expensive and hard to come by. Luckily, most cases are fairly routine that the majority of the time for the average person it doesn't really matter in the end. It's not like most can afford the best anyway.

Just take any profession that your retail consumer might get access to and the same spread applies.

If only Mexico had paid for the wall the first time. Sad.

Weren't the ads Trump ran on trans fear some of the most effective of the entire cycle?

On what basis are you deciding what is or isn't an issue? You think right wing media doesn't talk about DEI and trans people all day? It's like the only issue they have left to win "middle America" over on.

Who likes seeing ICE thugs round up non criminals on the basis of skin color and nationality alone? Not enough of the middle. I'm seeing more and more Trump voters saying they didn't vote for this. The presidency is won on the Obama-Trump-Biden-Trump voter not on partisans. How many of these voters have articulated the same regret when it comes his policies re DEI or trans rights?

Maybe you are projecting because it's easier to come up with an excuse based on alleged economic malaise?

Well usually you don't enter into an agreement with Target regarding your data privacy with respect to such surveillance video as a predicate to walking into the store, so I'm not sure this is the slam dunk point you apparently think it is. Maybe it is implied when you walk through the door, I don't know. I know you don't explicitly agree to anything or have an option to govern what Target does with its surveillance video of you. At least, I don't recall ever being offered this option.

When you signup to ChatGPT you agree to some terms as a predicate to access. You can also instruct them to and opt in or out of certain data sharing arrangements, violations of which I would think would (or at least, should) be punishable by law. Many of these agreements are taken quite seriously, especially in the cases of enterprises who want their chats, logs, IP, etc. protected.

Now perhaps there is already a clause in the terms I never read that says something like, "If we suspect you of plotting against our company, we may share your data with the authorities (a third party) even though we agreed to keep your data private". Or maybe under a more general suspicion of a crime, though as OpenAI is a frontier lab, not a detective agency, I'm not sure how they would make that call. Usually, those calls come from outside the house. Idk how it works. But I am far less confident than you that the instructive model here is Target. You may be right though. I simply find myself less reassured by your knowledge of Target security protocols and petty theft as instructive in this case than you are. As I say though, you may have it right.

Have a nice day.