> The company behind brands like Heinz, Kraft and Philadelphia is now cutting prices (2) on some products that have grown too expensive, increasing promotions and rolling out smaller package sizes at lower price points.
This reads as if they've found an approximate limit to shrinkflation and need to back pedal a little bit? However buying smaller packages more frequently is surely, ultimately, more expensive anyway.
Not to mention results in more plastic use per ketchup used, or whatever, on top of it all.
My settings are similar. I also added to be very concise without losing important information. It's output is so slim now that I can ask yes or no questions. Asking for a code snippet gives me just a snippet without an accompanying paragraph of explanation that I would just ignore anyway. Of course I can still ask follow up questions, but it gets right to the point. No filler is a dream.
I mean, you wouldn't mind if I followed you everywhere then, right? And waiting outside your home when you're inside. They call that stalking. Doing that systematically to everybody doesn't make it ok.
Plainly, I think it makes sense to not be constantly in view of a single entity when in public.
This is why the courts have not ruled it a violation. It’s not following you. Not literally taking precise measurements of your position. It’s not even you, nor could it be proven you are even driving in the majority of cases. It’s an image of the rear of a car. Only while passing a stationary point.
What is to be decided, is how many single points does it take to be considered “precise” measurement. If I put a camera every 500ft of roadway, is it tracking how? Probably. Still not your though, it’s a car. Is a car an extension of you? Do your rights extend to the car?
In case law, even though a phone is not you, it’s considered an extension of you. A car is not. A phones location data continues even when in the privacy of your home, or in a private building. A church, a hospital, whatever.
That is why cellular gps data requires a warrant.
Dispersed points on a map, with a timestamp, and image of the rear of a car are not the same.
>Dispersed points on a map, with a timestamp, and image of the rear of a car are not the same.
It might as well be the same for all intents and purposes though. If you place a Flock camera every 100m, the accuracy effectively becomes <50m. You can reveal basically every outdoor movement of a human with that level of precision.
Across weeks and months it can be used to profile you. The statistical analysis capabilities are insane. It also is not just "license plates" its everything. How you look, how you walk, your clothing, everything gets captured.
These cameras aren't just placed on road sides, the capture footpaths, parks, entries to peoples home, swimming pools even!
My building already has cameras at the entrances and in the halls. Doesn't bother me.
Abuse is possible, but I don't see why we can't limit it with laws and regulations. And the potential gains in terms of preventing crime and catching criminals are huge.
When there are other things we could be spending effort on that don't entail mass surveillance, why are you so interested in it being done with AI cameras? Besides, it's still only reactive. You'll still have criminals but you'll catch them a bit more often. You're not addressing the root issues that cause crime.
reply