I found on YT a lot of videos driving through Tokyo. At first, I thought is very big and messy. The more I watched, it clicked how is organized ( the ring around it, the main streets, the neighbourhoods, etc ).
After a week, it had the strange sensation I am living in Tokyo , since I was involuntarily remembering flashes of streets or corners. Even now, after months, I can close my eyes and see them, like a real memory of walking down that streets.
I had a samsung fridge. Every year it would spoil all of the food inside of it. The temperature reading on the outside would say 35 (1.5 c) but the food inside would be warm and spoiled.
It only happened when it was particularly cold outside. I eventually figured out that there is an external temperature sensor that causes the fridge to stop cooling below a certain external temperature. And that space in the kitchen was particularly cold in the back. But I could never read it below 55, so I think the sensor was faulty.
But the reading on the front is what really annoyed me. I had to keep a thermometer inside the fridge so that I didn't accidentally eat food that felt cool enough but was bad.
This happened every year. I eventually gave it away for free, with a warning to the person.
Where would the control come from? Software installed on the client's computer, or software installed connecting to an AI agent, or something else, something more external, something more interactive?
Yes, we install a small piece of software on their computers because we also separately control GUI of legacy windows apps. But we also need to control web based apps as well.
They just walked away from an antitrust case with what can only be considered a huge win for them. I don't think regulating them is going to happen any time soon.
Commented something similar at the same time. I hate weasel wording like this. There is nothing that prevents this data from being used that way now or in the future.
edit: And to be clear, the cameras specifically recognize and record people for a reason. This does not appear to be a fault in the system. One reason might be off-camera facial recognition.
Apparently police are accessing the network via their personal devices. I highly doubt their security practices online are any better than this. I wouldn't be surprised either to see things that chinese manufacturers do such as intentional back doors.
Overall this goes from disappointing to fairly repugnant.
Allegedly you can buy credentials on the darkweb to perform national searches. Might explain why some of the logged reasons for recent searches were “LMAO”
The normal explanation is plenty, unless you’ve never met, read about, or heard anyone talk about, law enforcement officers (who are human beings - for better and for worse).
How many of us have had coworkers who put something like that into a commit message? And that's a message that's at least notionally supposed to be helpful to you or your coworkers, rather than existing purely for the purposes of oversight you don't want in the first place.
I would expect law enforcement coworkers to understand the law, department procedure, and public requests for their data. That’s expecting too much from the academy, I guess.
Those that fail to meet standards should be fired to spare the taxpayers from the lawsuits coming from AI-assisted complainants.
It’s also too much for Flock’s YC-funded technology to implement a field filter that rejects “LMAO” as a valid request.
At the very least, your local staff’s nationwide stalking credentials being harvested by phishing and abused by others should carry criminal negligence penalties. Governments should pass that liability onto this YC-funded startup company.
This meme will not die, and here you can see it blossoming into something even weirder.
There is one (1) case in the literature, back in the early 2000s, where a department rejected a candidate as overqualified based on a cognitive assessment; the rejected applicant took that department to court and lost.
That's it; that's all the evidence.
Against that: most police departments around the country administer written tests with general cognitive components for which there is a floor score and no ceiling (the POST, the NTN, &c). And virtually no departments --- none I'm aware of --- administer IQ tests.
From all this, we've now got "a federally protected right"?
Literally the only thing you know here is that one department didn't like one candidate and came up with a reason to deny him based on cognitive overperformance. For all you know, they didn't like his hair color, and came up with an excuse. And that's it: out of over 15,000 police departments in the US, almost 1,000,000 sworn officers, and over 25 years, this is the evidence you have for the claim that there's an enshrined "right" to reject police officer candidates who are "too intelligent".
It's an Internet urban myth. I'm just stepping in to call it out as such.
reply