hef19898

Camera tech on a phone is automated post-processing. Nothing else.

Sure, a camera is a specialized tool doing a limited set of functions. It does not need the vast majority of functions Android offers: phone, 5g, internet, app stores... No nerd for that on a camera.

What camera needs: fast "boot", stability, reliability, ability to run offline for decades.

And no, I don't want all software being developed the way a social.media app for a phone is.

What software exactly are modern DSLRs or mirrorless cameras missing? I know, picking at software is a favorite past time on HN, but most of the time it is missing the point. Examples for this include: ERP systems, embeded and or safety relevant software, software in highly regulated markets or sectors. And, it seems, cameras. Computational photography is all fine, on an iPhone.

My Pixel takes reasonably good images, even printed some in A4, at A3 they suffer. That is for the camera generated JPEGs, the RAW files are all but unusable.

It shows that smartphones use small, and crappy, sensors behind even smaller, and crappier, lenses. Phone got a long way, and there is a reason they replaced point-and-shoots. They are still a far cry from "real" cameras.

If I want a camera running a smartphone OS, I use a phone. A camera should be by definition running on dedicated camera firmware, and nothing else.

True that. One thing that does work are targeted embargoes, if you do not want certain tech to spread to far and wide.

General sanctions so, well, trickey isn't it?

Also called sanctions (we do those all the time, and it is usually only the poor suffering the most) or the morally superior prime directive.

Sanctions can be necessary, and usefull, but incredibly hard to do right and target them correctly. Sanctions also suck at changing whomever is target for whatever.

True on so many levels, and most of the time ignored.

Well, what Lilium is flying is a demonstrator, not a prototype. The difference is that a prototype is close to the final product and test flights can be used in the early phases of the certification path, demonstrator flights cannot. Or to put harsher: all Lillium has is two model aircraft that have close to nothing in common with the 7 seater they are selling.

And one could call it a scam, when tuh product you sell has nothing to do with the product you show (and no, mock-ups at airshows don't count at all), and the product you sell has, so far, no clear timeline until certification. The aerospace version of vaporware. Whether or not it amounts to an actual scam woupd be for courts to decide. Right now it looks a lot like Nikola, without the option to use a hill to fake the product demo.

As a sidenote regarding test flights: last time I checked, those were unmanned, with a demonstrator and not a prototype and no longer than 6 minutes. Which is as far from what serious people in the field call a test flight of it could be. Good for PR and investors so, it looks cool.

Also, one can make everything fly, if you put enough thrust to it. Doesn't mean you have product that can sustain a business.

That depends on tge terms of service and the jurisdiction you are based in. And whether or not you want to go to court over it or not. IANAL, but I am fairly certain terms of service do not trump national copyright laws. At max, you might forgoe some usage rights, copyright will stay with you (at least were I live, as you cannot sell copyright, only usage rights if I understood, and remember, the finer points of our laws aroubd that stuff correctly).

That bog tech gets away with, is not necessarily because it is legal, but rather that people don't care, law makers only start to care and even if people would care, it is nigh impossible to successfully litigate.

None of the above is written in stone, nor should it stop us from doing something about it.

Nah, China already sealed of their internet as did Russia and to a degree India. If we have, in the end, a dead US-centric internet, well, as soon as people start ignoring that it wpuldn't be a real loss to humankind. Until we reach that point so, we are in deep shit. And LLM spam and crap content being US centric is least of our problems.

On that we agree, and I am happy for it.

A) Copyright laws exist for a reason, even big tech should respect them (considering their utter disregard for anything but money, well...) B) Especially Meta knows aleeady too much about everyone, now they can add AI trained on all of that (but what could possibly go wrong with that, right? C) I don't want AI to be trained on my stuff, to the point I don't share anything publicly anymore and only use encrypted clouds for back-up (and not even sure I'll do so any longer)

By the way, not everything is about money. Convincing people it is, is even a better trick than the devil convincing people he doesn't exist (that is assuming one believes in such things, and then considers the devil to be evil instead of the people ending up in hell, but I digress).

I'd very much prefer my privacy to be respected universally. One has to note so, that there is a very significant difference between a democratic government having rules in place to intrude on it and some capitalistic corporation doing it for profit.

Doesn't make him a failure so, does it?

And considering how little social.places like the US have, wel... Are you sure things a different today?