611–620 of 773 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You better be ok with building your own car then, because every major player is adding subscriptions for various features. Remote start and remote lock/unlock are the most common, along with satellite radio.
The way I see it is that you're supposed to own the car and every feature you paid for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think EU countries are supposed to be using the same legal privacy framework, although the exact way the laws are phrased and interpreted might differ from country to country. I believe in Spain, generally speaking, it is legal to record your interactions with someone when you are in public. But I think many people are not aware that this is legal, including some police officers, because privacy laws are perceived…
> you are only allowed to have CCTV outside if it's pointing directly at your door, not the street in general (and you must post a sign). I forgot to mention that I highly disagree with this restriction. It's really, really bad for home and personal security: pointing the CCTV at your door does absolutely nothing when a robber / kidnapper enters your house while wearing a ski mask. However, pointing the camera outsid…
Good. People who buy things should own the things they buy.
I want to add agreement to this, but to be more precise: people should own the things they buy and artificial (software ) means of locking people out of features shouldn't be allowed.
Physical goods should be required to follow the doctrine of first sale. There should never be any possible conditions on subsequent owners. If the first owner "unlocks" a feature, it should be unlocked for every subsequent owner.
> Software-locked features that need to be activated by the owner paying or subscribing to a service are becoming increasingly popular in the auto industry. Sorry, WHAT? People should absolutely boycott companies that try to squeeze bucks in this miserable way.
People overreact to this. If this didn't exist, they would just manufacture cars the old way where multiple version of the same car are produced at high and low prices. I have seen no evidence provided this actually increases the total price of a high feature car. This might actually lower the average price paid because of the economies of scale achieved by making fewer different versions of the same car. Resale valu…
Unless it’s something that requires the car manufacturer to also spend money on an ongoing basis (e.g. a cell data connection or something) it strikes me as absolutely immoral that these companies are going to band together and force this arrangement upon us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Third seems slightly better, cause at least the secondary buyer clearly knows it's $5/mo instead of having to make sure the one-time payment sticks.
In fairness, the second method should probably be implemented with an e-fuse. That way once it's paid, there's no taking it away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you're joking, but there's a whole genre of "adversarial fashion"[0][1] dedicated to making clothing that spams these sort of public data recognition services. Hoodies with license plates, face masks with weird facial features, etc. Often optimized against actual neural networks too [0] https://adversarialfashion.com/ [1] https://www.capable.design/
Gait detection renders any of this obsolute sadly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You better be ok with building your own car then, because every major player is adding subscriptions for various features. Remote start and remote lock/unlock are the most common, along with satellite radio.
I am very ok with building my own car if it comes to that. It's the cretins willing to actually go along with bullshit like this that are the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
We don't care about any of that; we just care about HN discussions being fresh and interesting vs. tedious and boring. Generic flamewar tangents are the latter, especially when they're re-repeated as often as this one has, so please don't take threads in those directions. If you have a substantive point to make about resale value, or something like that, that's totally fine, as long as you do it in a way that isn't f…
There's a lot of missing the point in these threads about software locks. Building a car in a uniform way for economy of scale savings, fine. Having a software unlock for hardware you already have (but didn't pay for in the price). Fine. Using software to rent-seek on one time costs like heated seats. Not fine. Less fine too if the seat subscription can't carry to secondary market. This can he used to cripple seconda…
If they don't present value for money at a given price point (including these sorts of shenanigans), don't buy it. So long as you know about these issues up front I don't think it's that problematic (even if it feels a bit wasteful in a holistic sense)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coming from an American perspective (where, when you are in public, you have basically no expectation of privacy), this seems insane. Does this mean that if I'm filming a vlog at Brandenburg Gate (which inevitably includes video of other people in the background enjoying the area), I'm in violation of privacy laws? Does that mean if I take a video selfie of me and my family members (which, again, includes images of o…
The European perspective is broadly to have the "freedom from ", whereas the American one is the "freedom to ". You've got the freedom to aquire an arsenal, I don't, but I prefer the freedom from other people gunning down my kids, which by extension limits the narrow personal freedoms of myself and others. Likewise, the American perspective is to draw a hard line on "in public", the European one is more nuanced. Yes,…
I don't think that's particularly useful, because the answer to the second is trivially Yes, regardless of the value of X.