I think there’s been one or two image decompression exploits over the years, so a site with a malicious file could end up running code on your system. I remember this being an issue with Minecraft clients and player skins at one point, but I can’t remember any specific times this happened in browsers tho.

Oh, it’s been litigated alright: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Voting_Systems_v._Fox_News_Network

My point is, it’s hard to read the credit card numbers when they’re not visible inside a wallet or pocket. It’s the difference between having to ask to use the credit card and just using it without the parent noticing (until it shows up on the bill). Point-of-sale equipment to charge credit cards by tap aren’t exactly something people leave their kids unattended with.

You better hope all the kids’ parents keep their credit cards locked up in a faraday cage. All it takes is waving the controller past, and the charge is made. It’s a lot different than having to take the card out and type in the numbers.

All we had to do was follow the damn Train, CJ!

What’s crazy to me is how this insurance database lookup even makes sense… Most insurance companies give you a grace period to add new vehicles if you have an existing policy. For mine in Washington, I have 14 days to tell my insurance if I’ve bought a new car, and it’s covered under my existing policy until then. Flock would have no way of looking up this information and has no justification to flag a vehicle like this…

I remember this from back when it was still called Minetest. I’m actually surprised the name change doesn’t seem to be because of Microsoft lawyers, but just that they wanted to get away from being considered a “Minecraft Clone”.

I’ll have to check out what’s been happening with it the last few years, it sounds like there’s a lot more to it now.

It was renamed in 2024

The device also has to account for the location of your mom.

/s

(sorry, I couldn’t resist)

We really should still be calling this machine learning… Calling stuff AI has so many connotations that aren’t really applicable to this type of software. We’ve had image recognition and other matching algorithms for years before LLMs came along.

A permissive license is a specific category of open source license. As I said, all official repository software is free and open source. If the terms of the license did not allow it to be freely distributed or was a revocable license, it would not be allowed in the arch repository.

All packages published to the arch linux repository are free software that can be built from source and have permissive licenses. Non-free software such as nvidia drivers and other things are distributed separately through the AUR, and aren’t managed by the Arch Linux team.

I would consider the collection of software provided to be no different than any other OS with optional packages. There are several forks of Arch Linux like EndeavourOS that have more complete defaults.

Arch Linux has no EULA because it is not sold software like Ubuntu Pro.

They have a Terms of Service for the online services, which you can be banned from for misuse, but this does not prevent you from using the software. You can legally obtain it through any of the hundreds of mirrors, or even compile it from scratch.

https://terms.archlinux.org/

I had to look these up, and it looks like it’s Adaptive Cruise Control (regular distance based), and Intelligent Cruise Control (ACC + lane keeping). Most likely it switches between if it can’t find the road lines.

I only have ACC in mine, and there’s still situations where I turn it off like in heavier traffic. It reacts too slowly so it ends up braking harder than it needs to, and then waits to accelerate and leaves a huge gap. It effectively makes traffic worse than if I drive manually.

I’ve also turned the lane departure system to warning-only because I’ve had it try to push me off the road before while I was towing a trailer. On narrow windy roads, it’s basically required to hug the lines so I don’t end up clipping trees with the trailer.

To be clear, this is the theoretical minimum amount of energy to lift a mass straight up. I’d be surprised if an airplane moving sideways would hit even 30% efficiency in comparison.

How have I not heard this before… It seems more relevant then ever these days

Now that you mention it, they specify a maximum total weight of 25,000 lbs, so at 100% efficiency it would take 339MJ of energy to lift the fully loaded plane to 10,000 ft. That can be converted as 94 kWh, and at the current cheapest electricity price in the US of $0.1235/kWh, that’s $11.63

Therefore, it is literally impossible for this plane to reach 10,000 ft for $5 fully loaded.

I guarantee you the microcontroller that handles the wifi is 10x more powerful than what would be required to just run an offline schedule. There’s no processing involved… It’s not like this is using a camera + AI to see if your cat is too fat.

Edit: I just looked up this model and its actual features… it’s not that far off, since it seems to run image recognition to tell when the cat is eating. If they’re streaming video back to the cloud for processing, that sounds even worse than what I was expecting. It would be entirely possible to run a small image recognition model locally in a product like this.

There are much simpler solutions like the ones that detect a chip in the pets collar (or the embedded id chip most pets have)

Anyone know the terminal velocity of a falling Porsche 914? lol

It’s not a question of where he grips it! It’s a simple question of weight ratios. A five ounce bird could not carry a 1 pound coconut!

Well, the data we do have is that the flight was just under 30 minutes and very likely under 100 miles.

From the Wikipedia on airline fuel efficiency:

The worst-performing flights are short trips of from 500 to 1500 kilometers because the fuel used for takeoff is relatively large compared to the amount expended in the cruise segment, and because less fuel-efficient regional jets are typically used on shorter flights.

In the example values table, the most efficient plane for a 560km trip burns 0.92 kg of fuel per km, so doing some rough math and assuming the electric plane travelled 100 miles, that would be roughly 148kg of fuel, or 50 gallons (190L).

At current jet fuel prices ( $3.76/gallon ) that’s about $188 US in jet fuel as a rough estimate. It’s unclear if the test flight went up to full altitude or if the plane was at full weight, so a fair comparison might have used even half as much jet fuel.

Edit: From some of the other comments, it seems like they might have only considered flight time as cruising time, not takeoff and landing, so my numbers will be quite far off if that’s the case. My gut feeling is that this is probably the case, because this seems like too big a difference otherwise.