Isn't the correct answer to this, lobbying for higher speed limits? Rather than chastizing obedience to current rules.

In Italy several cities lowered the maximum speed from 50 to 30 km/h.

There was a huge fight over it, car drivers in those cities were mad. Plenty of politicians opposed it.

One year later stats were super clear: streets got way safer and the number of fatal accidents dropped to near 0. Time to traverse cities didn't change much, as it was already limited mostly by traffic and lights.

I think this ignores the argument the high speed limit people make which basically boils down to "sure some people will die or get injured but its worth it because driving faster is fun"

I’m absolutely sure people are just interested in shorter commute times rather than higher max speeds. That makes this an easy sell to citizens

I believe you, but do you have a citation?

Search for the phrase "Vision Zero"

Yes, agreed. Though speed limits higher than 75 are not something I will ever support.*

* Unless we're talking about removing a speed limit altogether and regulating unsafe driving using other criteria.

Autonomous vehicles following proper signalling before lane changes can be safe at arbitrary speeds (see Autobahns working at all). Humans, we should limit passing speed to roughly ~5 mph delta between adjacent lanes and leave it at that.

Humans with adequate following distance in the entire lane can probably manage 10 mph delta. I routinely travel dozens of miles very safely at ~80 with the flow of traffic (including the cops), and been stressed out at 55 in the carpool lane through stop and go traffic in the right-hand lanes due to on ramps/offramps.

What happens at 76mph?

Same thing that happens at 77mph :)

I think 75 is memorable and roughly in the region where the tradeoff between increased kinetic energy and decreased time to arrival per additional unit of velocity becomes untenable.

> the tradeoff between increased kinetic energy and decreased time to arrival per additional unit of velocity becomes untenable

Sounds like a warning page out of the back of a 94 Geo Metro owner's manual.

N00b question from me, perhaps, but how easy is it to mount and run Lidar on aerial drones?

It's easy but it's not cheap. Well, price is relative but capturing video is certainly cheaper.

Also, I am not sure how heavy LIDAR units are, but remember that the heavier the payload the more the flight time is reduced. Some drones can only have a single payload, so if you also want to capture (high-res) video/imgs you need to fly again.

It all depends on the use-case.

The most available lidar is found on your iPhone, but the results are orders of magnitude less detailed than that derived from photogrammetry. How ever an advantage is that lidar is not confused by reflections.

Huh? LIDAR absolutely is confused by reflections. Not always the reflections you can see (because often it’s using IR wavelengths) but nonetheless, reflections.

"we built foundational protections (...) including (...) training our models not to retain personal information from user chats"

Can someone please ELI5 - why is this a training issue, rather than basic design? How does one "train" for this?

This is just marketing nonsense. You don't have to train models to not retain personal information. They simply have no memory. In order to have a chat with an LLM, every time the whole conversation history gets reprocessed - it is not just the last answer / question gets send to the LLM but all preceding back and forth.

But what they do is exfiltrate facts and emotions from your chats to create a profile of you and feed it back into future conversations to make it more engaging and give it a personal feeling. This is intentionally programmed.

I think they mean that they trained the tool-calling capabilities to skip personal information in tool call arguments (for RAG), or something like that. You need to intentionally train it to skip certain data.

>every time the whole conversation history gets reprocessed

Unless they're talking about the memory feature, which is some kind of RAG that remembers information between conversations.

> In order to have a chat with an LLM, every time the whole conversation history gets reprocessed - it is not just the last answer / question gets send to the LLM but all preceding back and forth.

Btw, context caching can overcome this, e.g. https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/caching . However, this means it needs to persist the (large) state in the server side, so it may have costs associated to it.

I used to work in healthtech. Information that can be used to identify a person is regulated in America under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). These regulations are much stricter than the free-for-all that constitutes usage of information in companies that are dependent on ad networks. These regulations are strict and enforceable, so a healthcare company would be fined for failing to protect HIPAA data. OpenAI isn't a healthcare provider yet, but I'm guessing this is the framework they're basing their data retention and protection around for this new app.

Same question. I wonder if they use ML to try to classify a chat as health information and not add it to their training data in that case.

I also wonder what the word "foundational" is supposed to mean here.

I assume they want to retain all other info from user chats, and they're using an LLM to classify the info as "personal" or not.

Could be telling the memory feature not to remember these specific details

Something so grim should be accompanied by its citation, just so we can check it's not a windup

I didn't wanna cite the Fortune article I got it from because it cited research from a group called "Whop" that didn't have the full data available. But here's the article I read

https://fortune.com/article/gen-alpha-dream-careers-youtuber...

EDIT: now that I'm looking more into it, I think this YouGov poll was the original source https://today.yougov.com/technology/articles/39997-influence...

I do vaguely recall a more serious study showing a vast majority of kids thinking "influencer" was a viable career path and a very large portion beleiving it was the only viable career path for them. It also found that these percentages were higher in boys than in girls. That's the study I was trying to find but failed and found this instead

two decades ago it would have been:

  1. Movie Star / Actor
  2. TV Star / entertainer

Youtube / tiktok are just the equivalent for that age in this day & age.

One interesting difference is influencer is plausible for a significantly larger population of youth than their legacy equivalents ever were

This is probably true and I would be really interested to see a longer-running study with a consistent methodology taking this on

Consider a prompt like this to a Deep Research agent if you are interested:

How have youth career aspirations toward entertainment/fame-oriented careers changed over time (1960s-present), and does the rise of "influencer" represent a genuine shift or category substitution?

\"Specific sub-questions\":

1. What longitudinal or repeated cross-sectional surveys have asked children/teens about career aspirations with consistent methodology?

2. What were the historical rates for "actor/entertainer/movie star" type responses in surveys from 1970-2000?

3. How do current "influencer/YouTuber" rates compare when aggregated with traditional entertainment categories?

4. Are there international comparison studies showing different rates by country?

5. Is there evidence for changing perceived accessibility of fame careers (kids thinking it's actually achievable vs. fantasy)?

\"Priority sources\": Academic journals (Journal of Career Development, Journal of Vocational Behavior), Gallup historical archives, Pew Research, YouGov archives, OECD education reports, Harris polls historical data.

\"Methodological notes\": Flag when studies use different age ranges, different question framings (open-ended vs. multiple choice), and whether "entertainment" categories were offered or emerged organically.

I ran this for you and got some really interesting results[0] (TLDR: Young people have traded the stability of the "Company Man" for the autonomy of the "Personal Brand" in response to a labor market that no longer guarantees security.

[0]: https://gemini.google.com/share/3652b7910d8b

Youtuber is not a grim thing at all. Basically they are saying they aspire to share their hobbies and interests with others in a monetized way.

This perhaps isn't the lind of lethality the DoD has in mind.

Hacker News is social media, isn't it?

Check out how Wikipedia and the rest of the wikimedia universe is run.

EU Data Act will be more relevant here, but will take a while to roll out.

Given https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ukusa-agreement-o... , what does sovereignty even mean here?

I also wish we were attracting industries that weren't going to significantly push up electricity consumption on windless days, which will have an outsized effect on electricity prices everyone else pays. At least this says the datacentres will be up north, hopefully not exacerbating transmission issues.

This is about the Category 1 duties arriving by 2027, not this year's tranche of rules (such as age gating).