Low-bandwidth cellular chip…

Depends on where you live and where you plan to go with it. Our EV at current range is fine to get to the nearby large city in the summer over a fairly long stretch of highway. In winter it would probably be doable but at the least it impact our stopping/charging schedule. At 70% range it might not be doable at all in winter and we’d have to be careful in summer. Governments pushing EVs absolutely should be pushing a reasonable recycle/replacement cycle for batteries and the infrastructure to support that.

They’re fine for certain things on an evolving menu etc, but not anything where a tactile sense might be needed to avoid distraction. A lack of volume knob is the thing that pisses me off the most in many vehicles, including my own.

Also, power should be a physical cutoff and NOT a soft button for head units. The one of my car is a software toggle and when the system started glitching, froze and also put out high volume noise with no way to kill it except to shut off the vehicle when I could safely do so

I do but it’s certain circumstances where it make sense (on aircraft or when I’ve got a good pair of wired earbuds/headphones on me). Sometimes I use Bluetooth, sometimes wired but I appreciate having a CHOICE!

Ditto. “The Cloud” is just another name for somebody else’s computer which you don’t control

Raw high-def video and image files? But yeah, there’s unlimited and then there’s kinda pushing the limits of what’s reasonable. 233TB is more than the contents of some orgs’ datacenters

Which is a matter of how little they’re allowed to have. If there were some sort of minimums that might actual force them to be somewhat effective.

Instead it’s a race to the bottom of “your business is important to us, but nobody gives a fuck about your satisfaction”

Also why does his dang tie hang halfway to his knees?

Covering his balls?

Except that ALL means everyone, which would include the ones doing good by citizens, fighting against corrupt shit, and not quitting.

It’s not “all cops”, it’s the fucking system that corrupt.

It’s like making a discriminatory (racist/sexist/whatever) comment and then turning to a person who falls under that group and saying “but, uh, we don’t count you in that”, and plenty of people DO immediately turn shit on anyone just for being a cop.

Red shirt and brown pants are the best combo. Hides the stains if they ever get into an actual conflict

But how do you know they choose to not blow the whistle? Seems quite a number of things are coming to light where things WERE escalated to superiors or even government. These end up under gag-order while “under investigation” - often for years - which means that they reporting officer could be fined/jailed themselves for leaking it, and includes stuff like sexual assaults within the police force itself.

It’s a no-win situation for good cops, and calling them spineless and complicit without knowing the details of such just makes you an asshole.

I’m more interested in if they find evidence of communication with his Russian handlers

To scalp something though you’d have to have enough people want a thing that’s hard to get. I’m not sure that’s the case with the CT anymore

But if they force Google to open their app store, I hope that do it for fucking everyone.

At least on Google devices you still can sideload apps, and fairly easy TBH. My biggest annoyance is the “you can’t buy stuff in apps without giving us a cut” which fucked up stuff like ebook apps etc

they’re actively rooting out good cops from the force and punishing them for being good

Which is actually one reason I have the ACAB acronym. There are good cops, and they get shit from both ends either for not toeing the blue-line or just for being cops.

If somebody actually does get shot, the ACAB crew is out in full force while often ignoring the lengthy record of crime and violence of the involved - or even camera evidence - while stating it was obviously just a cop looking for somebody to shoot.

Fuckers are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where nobody in their right mind would want to be a cop

Or even the opposite analogy. A guy goes to a bar that has an ID requirement. Has a few drinks. Meets a girl. They end up having a conversation and she and he hook up.

A week later, the cops show and the guy is charged with a sex crime because the girl was under 18 even though:

• By all appearances she was of a similar age to him and consenting
• She was in a place where only adults would be expected to attend
• The ID requirement of the establishment meant that she should have been well above 18

So what’s the liability of the bar, both towards allowing underage patrons and allowing them to hook up with older individuals while potentially intoxicated? Could they be sued and/or shut down? How does that story change if the bar was known to look the other way on underage patrons, or not properly check ID? How about if the girl in question was known by some of the staff? How about if the man knew that underage patrons were not uncommon.

Who has a case against the bar: the man; the girl or her parents; the police; or maybe all of them?

Nobody should applaud an establishment working under the rules and doing their best being shut down, but when that establishment has a known history of illegal activities on their platform/premises there’s a case that can be built against them.

That said, the internet is not a bad, and as a globally accessible platform with no physical presence validating ID and policing users/content can be quite difficult. Hell, we see that here on Lemmy with a not insignificant number of people who engage in illicit activities or troll .

The common thing I’ve seen in more well -knowncases was the abuser striking up a relationship and pretending to be somebody younger, getting compromising details/photos from the victim, then threatening to release those to family/friends unless the victim follows their wishes (which often providing further sexual images/acts).

Not sure if that might be the case with a service like Omegle, but it was essentially what happened in the Amanda Todd case and other similar cases.

Yeah even mid-90’s “the Internet” started with a doodadootdootdadadoot and wasn’t exactly fast for the vast majority of little. Early 28.8kbps came out around '94-95, and real-time video of decent quality wasn’t so much a thing. More like RealPlayer buffering.

That said, there was still plenty of janky stuff around. BBS’s weren’t uncommon even before that and generally had people uploading all sorts of stuff. Porn was plentiful, though you often had to wait upwards of a minute for that file to load and see if there were actual boobs.

Newsgroups were full of weird groups as well as fairly normal ones where the occasional troll would post nasty stuff.

You could definitely still run across predators hanging around in various places. IRC had tons of them, and A/S/L is a pretty well-known intro to this day. There were some video chats, though it would have been a pixel, low-FPS mess.

Nowadays the internet is faster, more connected globally and with more people. There’s still terrible shit but I don’t know that it’s any more unexpected/unavoidable than back in the 28.8 days. Parents should be aware and children should be educated on how to be safe online, and platforms should do their best to stem abuse but that’s not really an easy thing without style pretty strict ID requirements, which are often strongly resisted for privacy reasons.

One of the things it asks permission for when hooking up Bluetooth etc is “call history”, “contacts” or “text messages”

I’d assume the system needs those to read it messages or call/redial. It wouldn’t need OCR to do other things with that data

I can’t recall if I limited to Google’s IP’s or not actually. Just that I wanted to prevent their devices from ignoring the DHCP provided hosts