I think the issue is that the administration is in an adversarial relationship with China. Risky to allow a foreign power have a kill switch on critical infrastructure.
Just to clarify: We accept the security risk of kill switches in networking equipment, smartphones, laptops, servers, clouds, processors, bluetooth firmware and nvidia driver blobs, but we draw the line at civillian cars?
And in contrast to the listed items above, for civillian cars you can choose from dozens of countries who produce them. And if you cannot accept security risk of owning a "kill switch" car then you can still go back to gasoline or diesel.
I feel it's crazy to collectively accept security risks in vital electric equipment but suddenly cars are the one product that becomes a political issue. An unlike cars there are very limited alternatives with electrical equipment.
This doesn’t seem that crazy to me - a broadly applicable coordinated OTA zero day applied across cars during US rush hours has the potential to result in likely hundreds of thousands of deaths in a few hours if safety critical systems like airbags can be tampered/inhibited by OTA-capable systems.
The scale of car travel plus the inherent kinetic energy involved make a correlated risk particularly likely to lead to a mass casualty event. There are very few information system vulnerabilities with that magnitude of short-term worst case outcome.
Sure but you could just nuke us too, given that the response to a mass civilian death event would be the same. Same reason the US would be foolish to destroy the Three Gorges Dam.
It doesn't need to be a mass civilian death event. They can wait, collect data and kill 90% of our most important soldiers, heads of state, spies and everyone needed to maintain critical sectors of our economy. They could kill everyone who is anti-china. They could kill all the members of one political party (any one) as a false flag and cause a civil war.
Surveillance technology is nessisarially selective, so these "all or nothing" hypotheticals do not apply.
There was already a million vehicle recall for a vulnerability that allowed remote control of safety features (steering/breaking/acceleration control) that could be abused by anyone with a sprint mobile sim.
.... and the second US civil war starts up and one side has hacked into the automobile kill switches ...
"security" and "war" come in all sizes and shapes. Even inter-national warfare can be of the "cold" variety, in which nobody is nuking anybody else, but making automobiles randomly unreliable could be extremely effective (for a while, anyway).
Not really convinced by your argument. If you want to achieve your scenario you just take a sysadmin from the Tesla shanghai plant and next time they go to the US HQ they gain access to a coworkers laptop and deploy an OTA update to the tesla fleet. And this is assuming that the Tesla OTA update deployment mechanism is actually separated between countries, and not simply accessible from the Tesla intranet.
No need to design & ship another low-cost car model for this.
The security risk of backdoors in your IT may drive you crazy, but backdoors in your car may drive you off a bridge.
I agree with your point. But cars are the last line of defense, and they are technology most people understand. With computers, you can just unplug them at the end of the day. A backdoor in a car or a drone or something just kills you.
Cars are not critical infrastructure, also, the idea that China would turn off their EVs or starting to use them as weapons from the other side of the world is borderline absurd.
Occam's razor suggests that the simplest solution is the most probable: they are scared of the competition, because they know that if those cars enter the market they will dominate it.
If that's a normal thing to do, why aren't we hijacking russian teslas right now? Why haven't we made Microsoft push an OTA update to windows to bluescreen all military PCs in Russia? Why haven't we made Google and Apple push Android/iOS updates that cause all phones in Russia to crash?
I'm confident that even if at war with China, the US would not hijack random civilian cars, yes. That's absolutely absurd.
Of course we fucking would. Maybe not in a shooting match, which I guess means a proxy war. But if we went to war? If Americans were dying? It would be ridiculous not to.
Do you think China would permit vehicles it could disable to allow Americans to travel to and from jobs that might involve attacking it? Do you think they have some moral obligation to allow that?
The issue is that the administration is in an adversarial relationship with “woke”. That EVs and renewable energy somehow fall into this category is one of the dumbest parts of this timeline.
That's actually where I started! Majority (but not all) of the institutions present on the dashboard are from the CUMA :) I don't technically crawl that portal, but their robots.txt certainly seems to encourage it. Great resource.
I bought a domain that was previously used for hentai in the 90s and 00s. It was blacklisted from search because Symantec site review and other similar site review services marked it as adult content. I emailed each of them directly and within 48-72 hours, all had manually changed it. This is the only path that I know of.
My two cents, I believe there is an nuance worth deliniating, specifically differentiating between being elite "in status" vs being elite "in nature." Painting broad strokes here for the sake of this post (so take with a grain of salt)...
Many people born into or groomed for an elite status (via inherited wealth, rich families, strong support systems, etc) are rationally self preservationists. They were born on third base and know it. Many subconsciously know they do not belong there and cannot live up to the level of performance, intellectualism and hard work that laid the foundation for their current state or that others had to endure. Thus, they need support from the system to preserve their current state.
People who became elite in nature, are far more likely to value meritocracy. They lacked support, didnt know there was a "system" to be leveraged (eg getting unlimited time for an SAT score with a doctors note), had a chip on their shoulder, grinded their way to be top of their class, were the most productive, knocked on more doors, took risks others would consider irrational, etc.
At every level they've had to fight for what they have in a world where the criteria is often opaque. Being genuinely competent, they don't have an innate imposter syndrome, and thus, they value a system that has a clear and objective criteria for them and others, because they are confident they will operate fine within it.
EDIT 1: to add: With the above in mind, the more useful analysis in my opinion would be to assess the extent to which ethical frameworks and the role of fairness and meritocracy differ between those who were self-made (eg 1st of their generation to go to an IVY or get an MBA) vs not in "elite" positions of wealth or power.
EDIT 2: I'm not suggesting all people born rich don't deserve their success or do not possess these qualities of hard work, etc.
These are good insights. I think it is perhaps also worth noting that even the individuals who succeed on their own merit do so with a lot of luck, and it may not always be obvious to them the luck was there.
Milton Hershey is known for his candy company. Somewhat less known is the fact that his successful candy company was his fourth; his three previous bankrupted (mostly due to fluctuations in prices moving candy from tenable to untenable as a business) and he'd burned through so much of the family fortune pursuing them that his relatives cut him off from further loans. His father before him had liquidated his own piece of the family fortune speculating on opportunities. It could easily have been the case that those speculations might have paid off, which would have made Hershey the son elite category 1 (in status); similarly, if Hershey hadn't found one last source of investment money from a former employee, his candy-making aspirations would have ended when the family cut him off and we wouldn't know his story at all.
The system of stories we tell ourselves highlights the merit and downplays the luck; we don't remember the failure cases, including, often, the failures that predated the success. A lot of people who lacked support, didn't know there was a system to be leveraged, and grinded as far as they could before something critical broke are out there; they just don't get to give TED talks on what complete failure tastes like. Nobody gets to hear the lecture from Henry Hershey on "I mortgaged my family's future on opportunities that, had they paid off, would have made my son and wife wealthy and comfortable for the rest of their days... But none of them paid off and it was all ultimately objectively wasted effort, energy that would have been better spent tending a modest homestead and making it thrive in a small but sustainable way."
Great to acknowledge luck but too often it’s used as an excuse. Even the story you laid out has to do with a lot of persistence, grit, determination, learning from mistakes, etc
A better way of putting it is probably: barring terrible luck, nearly anybody can be successful if they’re willing to make the sacrifices, work hard, learn quickly, and keep at it long enough. And even if you get terribly lucky, it just makes your odds worse - there are people out there who’ve had worse luck than you and still became more successful than you.
> barring terrible luck, nearly anybody can be successful if they’re willing to make the sacrifices, work hard, learn quickly, and keep at it long enough
The problem is, I don't think we have nearly enough global signal to make that assertion. Wouldn't we need some objective metrics on how many people succeed vs. fail correlated against their level of effort?
I have some pretty deep-seated concerns that we have assumed "fortune favors the brave" without comparing that assertion objectively to other hypotheses such as "fortune favors the sons and daughters of the successful" or "fortune favors the pretty" (where "pretty" here is standing in for whatever mostly-permanent physical characteristic one might choose: sex, gender, skin color, working legs, what have you). To be certain, from a personal standpoint the only one of those you can control directly is your own boldness so that matters in terms of personal choice... But policy has to look at the level of not personal choice, but the effects rules, laws, and incentives have on sculpting society as a whole.
> Being genuinely competent, they don't have an innate imposter syndrome, and thus, they value a system that has a clear and objective criteria for them and others, because they are confident they will operate fine within it.
This is not a statement about competence, but about inflated ego.
Tihs is complicated by the fact that we seem to intimaly comply with others expectations.
That is to say, if I'm expected to be a hard worker, I will work harder than if I'm expected to be a lazy sloth. If I'm expected to behave kindly, I will indeed behave kinder than if I'm called "that scoundrel" all my childhood. If people think I must be "a genius like my father/mother" I will picture myself one and study harder. And so on. Not just because I want to deceive or am afraid to disapoint, but also because personalities are made up of such expectations, coming from us or others, and who we want to be, even unconsciously, influence who we end up being.
The people popularly referred to as “elites” are in practice status seekers who adhere to elitism, the belief that certain people are superior to others. Using the word “elites” without quotes is really creepy
Most of the social sciences would have you believe that if you are white and/or male, that you are automatically in the former category even if you had to do all of those things mentioned by those in the later category.
Nah, social sciences don't say that. It's a common misconception - borne out of people who don't want to engage with what they're actually saying, or from engaging with people who don't know what social sciences actually say.
All they really say is some people have an advantage. It doesn't mean they have it easy. We get advantages from all parts of life, and refusing to engage with recognizing them is a decision, but I don't find it particularly healthy.
Due to various reasons outside of my control, my life has been objectively easier than others. It doesn't mean it was easy. Just easier. If even one or two of those things changed my life could have ended up very different.
White privilege is a specific case of the phenomenon: “if you live in the culture built by your culture, you will benefit”, which is the whole point of culture in the first place.
A Japanese person has Japanese privilege in Japan, an Egyptian in Egypt, etc
If you’re “culturally American” in America (regardless of race), you will benefit.
If you’re White and culturally American in parts of America where White American culture dominates (like our institutions, which reflect a country that has been historically 90%+ White), you will benefit
If you’re White and in a place where non White culture dominates, you will be relatively disadvantaged. Most countries around the world, and even parts of the US (parts of Chicago where you have significant disadvantages from being White).
I've had challenges in my life. At no time have I ever lived somewhere for more than two weeks with no running water, because I was born American and sufficiently affluent and lucky to be both in towns with municipal water and in buildings connected to that water. So I get to completely cross off "Has clean running water all the time" from my list of needs and wants, and not everyone does.
... and I gotta say, potential employers like you a lot better when you've had a shower that morning.
We are not bots, we just loathe historically bad-faith actors and especially with the current climate, we will take the opportunity of harmless schadenfreude where we can get it.
Father of three here, I like the premise and execution of this a lot. I don't let my kids use iPads or iPhones and we only watch movies (not shows) as a family on weekends.
What resonates with me:
- Dead simple interface
- Zero risk of ads
- I like that you can ask follow-up questions
Some ideas
- Using this on Web, the cursor should autofocus on the text box
- A log / audit trail of questions asked would be fun to review as a parent
- One of my biggest concerns about AI is the lack of guardrails preventing them from generating answers rather than using the technology as an amplifier of knowledge. For example, if my son asked "what is 142 + 47?", I would feel better knowing the response explained how he could approach the problem 100 + 80 + 9 = ? rather than answering the question
-
Wonderful feedback, thank you. We are a movies only and only on the weekends family as well.
- We log the questions asked in each child account for parents to view in the parent account, but the questions are only logged when they're signed in.
- Regarding giving the answer rather than fostering the process of discovering the answer, this is something we've gone back and forth on. I think we will add a setting for this in the parent's settings for each child account. We've talked to parents who want one or the other, so we will work on adding it as an option to just give them answers right away or have it start those teaching moments.
> For example, if my son asked "what is 142 + 47?", I would feel better knowing the response explained how he could approach the problem 100 + 80 + 9 = ?
I'm 35 and this is a game changer, my schooling failed my but thanks so much!
Agreed, I can't wait. It's this or they should install facial recognition cameras with social credit scores. Either way, something needs to happen.
Not an exaggeration, I witness some physical escalation 3 out of 5 days a week between Union Square and Midtown NYC on my daily commute. 10 minutes ago a delivery guy and a pedestrian got into it when the bicyclist ran the red light and went into the cross walk while a swarm of people were walking through it. I've personally been accosted 3x while holding hands and walking my 5-year old son to school in completely "random" acts aggression. Strangely, it's not them trying to rob me, the aim is just to harass.
