I am older and the future is always a problem. But I am old enough to understand that certain vaguely fearful futures are not feasible, and neurosis is not a basis for public policy...to solve a "problem" that violates no one's rights.
And, like any good doctor, I understand that it is better to treat the cause of a problem, than to treat its supposed symptoms.
Do you mean "wild west"? No, it's not really the Wild West. We trust the police with firearms. That's potentially more dangerous to our rights than a stupid camera that cannot see around corners. That is why it is important for police agencies to be independently responsible to the public, not to governance. Work the problem that needs to be worked, not get distracted by video toys.
The more relevant point is that there is no need to entertain a shapeless and nameless fear. Run the numbers. Nobody can afford the huge army required to put every person under continuous surveillance. And for what? If somebody wanted to sit on you, they would pluck out an operative, have him sit in a car across from your house to keep an eye on you, following you if you went anywhere. This is 19th century detective work. And you couldn't do a thing about it. But we don't fear it. Instead we fear a brainless piece of electronics that records an endless spool of boredom, mainly useful to investigate burglaries and fires and miscellaneous mayhem.
Nobody can afford the huge army required to put every person under continuous surveillance.
I'm not for or against but I can tell you that AI models can scan thousands of frames per second and flag up anyone who appears to be holding a cellphone while driving, for instance. Then the onus is on you to prove that you were actually holding a candy bar, or whatever.
I'm guessing you are older,and the future is not your problem.
Or one of the silent thieves. The same cabal that pushed Covid and the 2008 bubble is also pushing for Flock.
He must either have zero discernment, not touched the drops, or be a shill.
u/#q4962
Rich people don't have to worry about certain things, the rest of us do.
I am older and the future is always a problem. But I am old enough to understand that certain vaguely fearful futures are not feasible, and neurosis is not a basis for public policy...to solve a "problem" that violates no one's rights.
And, like any good doctor, I understand that it is better to treat the cause of a problem, than to treat its supposed symptoms.
It's the will west right now,we just have to trust these fuktards then?
Do you mean "wild west"? No, it's not really the Wild West. We trust the police with firearms. That's potentially more dangerous to our rights than a stupid camera that cannot see around corners. That is why it is important for police agencies to be independently responsible to the public, not to governance. Work the problem that needs to be worked, not get distracted by video toys.
The more relevant point is that there is no need to entertain a shapeless and nameless fear. Run the numbers. Nobody can afford the huge army required to put every person under continuous surveillance. And for what? If somebody wanted to sit on you, they would pluck out an operative, have him sit in a car across from your house to keep an eye on you, following you if you went anywhere. This is 19th century detective work. And you couldn't do a thing about it. But we don't fear it. Instead we fear a brainless piece of electronics that records an endless spool of boredom, mainly useful to investigate burglaries and fires and miscellaneous mayhem.
I'm not for or against but I can tell you that AI models can scan thousands of frames per second and flag up anyone who appears to be holding a cellphone while driving, for instance. Then the onus is on you to prove that you were actually holding a candy bar, or whatever.
I disagree they have so much money,they toss it at projects like this and see how it works out.
Money means nothing to them.
And it's probably all our money.
One more way to make us poor.