its more than likely “it can’t hurt, so might as well” more than anything.
If they really didnt want it, they wouldn’t have posted this at all, or like other suggested properly censored it, they simply tried here, deemed “most people won’t bother” and moved on from it.
god i love the modern internet.
since people are yelling about it.
It’s probably not blatantly bypassing security and privacy features, what it is PROBABLY doing is using the user to bypass them by simply manipulating them to do it.
Social engineering is way easier than whatever bullshit you would need to do to bypass sandboxing and dynamically recompile, or whatever people are claiming, and my guess would be that this is what they’re doing.
If the suit is claiming they are doing what i said, that’s probably legal, and not going anywhere, unless tiktok ban bill 2.0. If the suit is claiming what others are claiming, it’s still probably wrong and probably going to be tiktok ban bill 2.0.
Unfortunately these things aren’t all that exciting at the end of the day.
one of the most obvious ways is to simply not bypass them, and then do it from within the application itself. That way you can essentially man in the middle the rest of it, though this would require a rather specific set of events and a particularly nested design of an app.
it’s such bullshit that you sleeping in your vehicle is legal, but just leaving your vehicle laying around is considerably less illegal.
if true this is huge.
Tax actually gaming a little hard
if you actually look into what the insurance industries do for crash safety testing it’s actually kind of fucked up.
Because they basically started with full frontal impacts at n speed, that was met, so a decade later they were like “half frontal impacts are a thing now” and turns out most cars performed pretty bad on that, so they fixed that, and like a decade later again, they were fine, and then they were like “oh no, now quarter impact frontal is bad now” and then that’s what they’ve recently fixed.
So most of car safety seems to be for pretty specific, though i suppose “more likely” impacts.
that would be why the /s goes at the end :)
go have a look at my other comment in your inbox :)
i almost mentioned australia, but australia is just now getting an influx of these trucks, they’re becoming more popular.
Mexico, well uh, mexico has cartels, so i feel like that’s completely redundant and not worth mentioning, the statistics you could even gather from mexico are probably more significantly swayed by the existence of the cartels than they are from the increase in danger of the truck tbh.
Mexico is also a completely different place, so i would have to research into mexico specifically to know more about it and how it would be a problem.
unfortunately for you i live in america and do go outside, so i have a rather reliable viewpoint there. And that’s what im talking about.
as for canada, canada has a lot of logging and oil industry so it’s probably related to that, most of the populated parts of canada are coast line, the norther border and farther north are generally sparse and has a considerably lower population than most of the US. It’s just a little bit different from the US in most regards that would make comparing the data directly much harder.
Seems like you might have more ignorance than me, considering you forgot the entire rest of the world, where as you literally just referenced the entirety of “north america” maybe you’re just american pilled, but north america is not global, it’s north america.
probably a combination of the fact that there are substantially more trucks in the US compared to places in the EU for example where the statistics are probably significantly closer to “margin of error” levels of accuracy.
The US also has substantially more people driving, substantially more road, substantially less skilled drivers one could argue, though i would argue we have a much wider range of skilled drivers, than somewhere like germany for example, where they have a might tighter though higher sitting range of skilled drivers.
edit: a lot of these trucks outside the US are likely to be work vehicles exclusively i imagine, where as in the US they’re primarily work and personal, though i sure do see a lot more personal trucks on the road than i do work trucks on the road.
In short, other places don’t have these issues because other places simply have a lot less vehicles, and a lot less traffic, as well as a lot less of these trucks per capita compared to the US which is just statistically what you expect to see in the results.
Dangerous vehicles are really only dangerous when in large numbers because otherwise they are quite literally a statistical anomaly. It’s why old vehicles are still allowed on the road in the US even though they’re less safe, there just isn’t enough of them for it to be statistically significant.
an rpi is definitely more than enough, though you might want something more than an SD card, just use a VPN and or do it anonymously and be safe out there my friend. The usual rules apply, although most of the internet is better now.
Also my instance dbzer0 has a piracy sub with a rather good resource for getting into it if you aren’t immediately familiar with it. Good stuff on there for the average “just interested in how it works” individual, not looking to commit any crimes, because we are good and law abiding people, who respect the law and IP rights.
archive.org the only one that we all know about.
3/5s car law when btw
oopsie daisies, how could i accidentally commit a racism! Silly me, it just freudian slips sometimes!
idk the third place number off the top of my head, but that might be the case, although you would have to do some really weird data collection in order to get that number.
I think it’s just something fundamentally pleasing about the number itself that the human brain latches onto. I suspect it has something to do with primes, or “pseudo” primes, numbers that seem like primes, but aren’t since they’re probably over represented in our head among “random” numbers even though primes are perfectly predictable.
now the funny thing? Go find a study on the same question among humans. It’s also 47.
LLMs are incredibly bad at any math because they just predict the most likely answer, so if you ask them to generate a random number between 1 and 100 it’s most likely to be 47 or 34. Because it’s just picking a selection of numbers that humans commonly use, and those happen to be the most statistically common ones, for some reason.
doesn’t mean that it won’t try, it’ll just be incredibly wrong.
the reason they mention the US is because the US has significantly more of these trucks, it’s not even shifting goalposts, it’s literally cherrypicking the data to make it look better than it is.
damn what a shit website.
Some of these things are just like, shit we’ve known since the 60’s repackaged as “hey we’re pretty sure this isn’t that anymore”