See the inauguration fund. Money completely unaccounted for and that his team is saying pay to get exclusive access to Trump. It’s pay to play and it’s legal (at least for Americans).
I wonder if they were a remote sales or marketing rep.
I'm not sure why a software development Company would have an employee doing telemarketing, at least not the unsolicited direct to consumer type we use the term for in the US. Maybe this is a connotation issue.
I don't know if you're from the US or not, but in the US the term telemarketer usually refers to someone that makes cold calls to private residences. It is usually low paid work and usually outsourced to countries with cheap labor.
And if you bent the frame of the car and broke the suspension and did some damage to the sensors on your suspension? In the US it would cost a fortune and it wouldn’t shock me if it costs 70% of the value of the car.
The outrage is justified if the screen cracked due to a manufacturing defect. Otherwise, get over it and be careful with your stuff if you can’t afford the repair.
And before you send something off, ask questions. The shipping costs I’m sure would have been disclosed.
> Otherwise, get over it and be careful with your stuff if you can’t afford the repair.
I don't know if you're an engineer, but if you are you probably don't take the same approach to errors in your software. Being careful is only part of the solution to reducing risk. Another is adopting practices and patterns that are less error-prone. And another is to reduce the impact of errors when they do happen.
With a software service, we might have redundancy, and a watchdog or orchestration system that restarts any instances that crash. With a laptop, we might purchase accidental damage insurance, or just decide to buy a brand that is cheaper to repair.
When humans are involved, "be more careful" is rarely a successful strategy on its own.
The largest floating solar under development that I know of is in Seychelles. It’s about 5MW. Haven’t heard much on the development timeline post Covid.
I don’t think the systems are new or unique. We test drive a Kia last weekend and it was a feature they called “Driver Attention Warning.”
I’ve seen this in other brands and cars as well.
It looks like these systems use a variety of factors, steering patterns, frequency of vehicle lane assist being activated, cameras evaluating driver, biometrics (heart rate, body temperature etc.), and face monitoring/eye tracking (to see if the driver is focused on the road).
We own a Volvo and have received surveys asking about our comfort level with these features, so I’m assuming this will be commonplace soon.
Consumer Reports made these a major factor in rating driver-assist systems, undermining Tesla’s Autopilot rating because it doesn’t actively look at the driver.
If the vehicle had these features built in by the manufacturer, and it was employer policy that the driver does not disable those features, would you still consider that to be a case of employers "judging" driving behaviour in real time? Or would it perhaps be a perfectly reasonable policy?
This is a monitoring system that helps drivers drive safer. Why are you assuming that it's anything else?
You're assuming "judgement" in a way that isn't related to driver safety that is not supported by anything in the article or the features themselves.
My understanding is that this is a system which is recording the driver for review by human management at a later date. Which is very different from anything that would come pre-installed in a vehicle.
We hear you want to unionize, unfortunately your driving record shows you were what “we” call a bad employee and are fired immediately. No you can not disputed the reasons and no we will no show you the evidence.
I think we're coming at this from fundamentally different worldviews. Mine tells me employers always turn new technology against labor. I don't assume it will happen, I look to history and make an informed prediction.
I can't argue that most people want this sort of feature. Even if it's uploading a live camera feed directly to your insurance company, most people would clamor for it if it reduced their monthly bill.
But the thing I wonder is, in 50, or 70 years from now, when someone's car is deactivated because they said the wrong thing online, or or an API was deactivated somewhere, I wonder who future generations will hold responsible. Because it seems like the smart people in the room are completely aware of the systems of oppression they are creating, but are doing nothing to stop it.
A fundamental difference is that for Americans, natural resources are owned by the individual property owner rather than the state. If you find oil on your land in the US, it is yours and you decide what to do with it. In most other countries if there is oil on your land, the government has the exclusive right to oil (or other sub-surface minerals).
Usually where there are significant amounts of minerals, there are separate mineral rights. Mineral rights trump surface ownership, and usually the rights were sold off decades or centuries ago. If you find something under your property, it probably doesn't belong to you.
Also, state laws vary in weird ways. Should you find gold in New York, it's the property of the state.
Outside developed oil or coal plays, severed mineral estates in the US are the exception, not the rule. Also, to the point above, those severed mineral interests are almost always privately held.
