211–220 of 235 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, if you want to pass responsibility off to someone else, how does the third party auditor do it? I'm not talking about checking a compliance box, I'm talking about actually confirming no backdoor exists.
So you claim it's never possible to audit anything?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me this smells of rather basic economic/political propaganda to scare people. The collective west is clearly getting orders from high above to apply pressure on China and it may just be that this is part of it, spreading an air of concern and fear to dissuade other people who pay attention to this kind of thing in municipalities to avoid Chinese manufacturers. It's rather basic social engineering that has the ham…
> The collective west is clearly getting orders from high above God?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you claim it's never possible to audit anything?
I'm asking how you expect an auditor to confirm the absence of something in a series of black boxes that a determined and skilled adversary would like to hide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"You can't have busses roaming around with no way to turn them off remotely." Hm? Not a single bus on the road in my city can be turned off remotely. There's never been one ever, since bus transport started. So why should, no, must, that be a feature of new buses?
Why do you think that they can't be turned off remotely? They all have over the air updates. Just push the update the bricks the bus.
And when I said "Not a single bus on the road in my city can be turned off remotely", that's the truth. They can't. They're all diesel, so there's not even a remote possibility of a hidden esim-powered switch.
Why did the post I replied to claim that it must be possible for buses? And why did you assume that I meant something else, and that all buses are electric?
Edit: Typo
This is likely laziness more than malice, but... why are busses connected to the internet?
(I think some early implementations worked via transponders in bus stops, but that's obviously a huge pain to roll out and maintain.)
Bus drivers in Norway are binary people. They either press the accelerator or they press the brake. Most drivers call it leg day, because you spend the entire day pushing on these peddles as hard as you can.
Our existing buses have terrible acceleration, which helps a lot with the comfort of the bus ride. But for some unknown reason someone decided that the bendy busses should have the only wheels with power, in the rear of the bus, after the bend. So any slight hill that is slippery from a bit of snow or frost, now becomes a a comedic video of buses trying to drive up before they flop in the middle of the bend and slide back down again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you are describing capitalism.
He is describing how bidding for publicly funded projects fails, because the bidding process designed to avoid corruption has been poorly designed (or corrupted by lobbying) such that it effectively sidelines honest and qualified bids. I would say this is a typical outcome with well meaning bureaucrats in a democracy, not capitalism
Wait until they found out about John Deere, Tesla or any other car with eCall.
(Teasers ... aren't especially conducive to "intellectual curiosity and thoughtful conversation": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404> https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...>.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are a capitalist, you should be pro-acquisition (i.e. of smaller firms) and anti-merger (for larger firms), because mergers are a form of crony capitalism that leads to reduced product quality and market dysfunction. First, merging firms reduce the number of products they sell, with the effects materializing one year after the M&A and accelerating over the next several years. Second, merging firms tend to drop…
I think most capitalists aren't pro or anti acquisition, for the simple fact that they don't believe they have the right to tell two people (or two groups of people) that they aren't allowed to associate with each other. But if you're more consequentialist, you might take it on a case-by-case basis.
In the abstract, I agree that we shouldn't tell two people whether or not they can associate with each other. But corporations? That's very different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just don't buy from them. Do you think making a local monopoly in Europe will lower European prices? Who the fuck invented that logic of "those companies prices are too high, we have to let them consolidate into a monopoly so they lower their prices"?
Prices aren’t the problem. China turning off your transportation is.