You’re admitting the technology is in fact flawed if you think it needed to be implemented with supervision.

You’re absolutely right. The technology isn’t perfect if it needs to be implemented with supervision, but it can be good enough to have a role in everyday society.

Great examples are self checkout lanes, where there’s always an employee watching, and speed cameras, which always have an officer reviewing and signing off on tickets.

An uno reverse is, every set of traffic lights needs a traffic controller to stop drivers running red lights.

Traffic lights are meant to control traffic. Yet you don’t expect them to prevent folks from running red lights. Folks don’t expect them to, because that’s not their role in their implementation - they are meant to be used alongside folks who will enforce traffic laws, and, maybe in fact, traffic controllers. This is arguably an example of an implementation done right.

This technology is meant to flag car damage. If there was a correct implementation, I would be able to say “folks don’t expect them to be perfect, because that’s not their role in their implementation - they are meant to be used alongside employees trained to verify damage exists, who can correct the algorithm if needed”, but the implementation in this case is sadly bad.

EDIT: hold on, just to make sure we’re on the same page, what is included when you refer to “the technology”? Is it just the hardware needed to produce the detections as well as the algorithm making the detections?

There is no human element to this implantation, it is the technology itself malfunctioning. There was no damage but the system thinks there is damage.

Let’s make sure we’re building up from the same foundation. My assumptions are:

1. Algorithms will make mistakes.
2. There’s an acceptable level of error for all algorithms.
3. If an algorithm is making too many mistakes, that can be mitigated with human supervision and overrides.

Let me know if you disagree with any of these assumptions.

In this case, the lack of human override discussed in assumption 3 is, itself, a human-made decision that I am claiming is an error in implementing this technology. That is the human element. As management, you can either go on a snipe hunt trying to find an algorithm that is perfect, or you can make sure that trained employees can verify and correct the algorithm when needed. Instead hertz management chose option 3 - run an imperfect algorithm with absolutely 0 employee oversight. THAT is where they fucked up. THAT is where the human element screwed a potentially useful technology.

I work with machine learning algorithms. You will not, ever, find a practical machine learning algorithm that gets something right 100% of the time and is never wrong. But we don’t say “the technology is malfunctioning” when it gets something wrong, otherwise there’s a ton of invisible technology that we all rely on in our day to day lives that is “malfunctioning”.

Society typically understands “there’s nothing wrong with x” to mean it’s performing within acceptable boundaries, and not to mean that it has achieved perfection.

Do you hold everything to such a standard?

Stop lights are meant to direct traffic. If someone runs a red light, is the technology not working as it should?

The technology here, using computer vision to automatically flag potential damage, needed to be implemented alongside human supervision - an employee should be able to walk by the car, see that the flagged damage doesn’t actually exist, and override the algorithm.

The technology itself isn’t bad, it’s how hertz is using it that is.

I believe the unfortunate miscommunication here is that when @Ulrich@feddit.org said the solution was brilliant, they were referring to the technology as the “solution”, and others are referring to the implementation as a whole as the “solution”

One of the videos in question has a direct call to action to support this bill

Active noise cancelling - noise cancelling that doesn’t just rely on making a seal between your ears and the earbuds/headphones.

Sounds like a you problem, I have it on good authority that it’s pretty common:

how many times does the average person use wireless charging? Seriously, I haven’t seen anyone do that yet, or know of someone who uses that.

and yet that’s still a major feature in lots of phones

You’ve shown everyone that you can, in fact, listen to wired headphones and charge at the same time with “major features found in lots of phones”, which solves your original complaint, which itself depends on some very specific scenarios.

Funny you bring up wireless charging.

Does that not solve your proposed problem? You can use a usb-c to audio dongle, which often comes with better sound quality than a phones DAC, and wirelessly charge, even via many powerbanks. These are features found fairly commonly in today’s phones, so problem solved?

If I’ve asked a question twice and you’ve danced around it both times, that tells everyone what your answer is.

Sure, for simplicities sake let’s just say it’s impossible.

How many times has the average person needed to do so in a year?

If we revisit the “loud” vs “statistically significant” paradigm, while it is a shame you will not be able to charge the phone with a dac in without buying a specific cable, how often does the average person do so?

Here’s a relevant stack exchange question. Regarding what an ISP can learn. Of note, everybody is ceding that the ISP can tell you’re using signal, and they’ve moved on to whether or not they’d be able to fingerprint your usage patterns.

Any number of other people. Primarily the government.

Right, so if the header isn’t encrypted, it’d be trivial for them to see who you’re sending to, which is why that’s important.

You never answered my question - do you think the network connection itself is encrypted? Or just the content of the messages?

You’re talking about encryption and signal because you’re worried about folks whose network you’re connected to being able to invade your privacy, right?

I’d say it’s a pretty reasonable suggestion to say we start with those guys. If you don’t worry about those guys, who do have access to traffic info, then why bother with encryption?

If the header isn’t encrypted it’d be easy to inspect, and thus easy to determine where it goes, which is why it matters.

Based on your questions, it sounds like you’re expecting the network traffic itself to be encrypted, as if there were a VPN. Does signal offer such a feature? My understanding is that the messages themselves are encrypted, but the traffic isn’t, but I could be wrong.

Would you? Are the headers encrypted?

How are they analyzing network traffic with Signal? It’s encrypted

Not my specialty, but signals end to end encryption is akin to sealing a letter. Nobody but the sender and the recipient can open that letter.

But you still gotta send it through the mail. That’s the network traffic analysis that can be used.

Here’s an example of why that could be bad.

How exactly do you think encryption prevents the analysis of seeing when an encrypted message is sent? It feels like you’re trying to hand-waive away by saying “encryption means you’re good!”

Cyber security is not my thing, but my understanding is that you’d still see network traffic - you just wouldn’t know what it says.

Reusable rockets, in particular.

Imagine having a reusable car in a world where they were all disposable.

This does sound like it could be a liability issue if not done correctly