CR has a long history of bias against anything electric in their reporting and headlines.
They state they drew these conclusions based on 330K survey responses. Over 13M vehicles are sold in the US alone each year. For 2.5% to be a representative sample requires extremely careful control over many confounding factors.
If their 330K survey responses follow the same distribution as new vehicle sales, only about 23K of them were BEVs. That doesn't seem like a representative sample of the roughly 1M BEVs sold each year.
Trotting out every argument against E2E encryption, but in reverse… secure communication for me, but not for thee.
Accountability doesn’t need to be real time - every word is recorded, either centrally or by multiple body cam mics. All those recordings are accessible where accountability really matters - in court.
Nobody would be opposed to the NYPD having an authenticated channel for their communications. Having an encrypted one diminishes the public’s oversight during a time of already diminished oversight.
Comparing the public’s right to privacy with a government agency’s desire to further escape accountability is a category error.
(More to the point: the precipitating factor for all of this was Eric Garner’s death at the hands of the NYPD; they would not have been held accountable had someone not noticed their chatter as he was being killed[1]. Timeliness of public access absolutely matters.)
In my experience it seems there is not a lot of understanding, even among people who are technology oriented, that it is possible to do strong cryptographic authentication without encryption. Whether from oversight or purposeful omission, it's an option that very rarely surfaces in discussion.
I don't really see why this is similar to the usual E2EE argument. these communications are public record on purpose, whereas people's personal conversations are not.
Bringing that into this is pointless, especially since I doubt this is E2EE in the same sense that private chats are.
I can see how that is an issue, but I still think bringing the E2EE argument in here is completely beside the point, and I think your point here serves to illustrate that: if a private chat didn't contain potentially sensitive information, it wouldn't make it any more reasonable to argue against being able to encrypt it. It may very well be that what the NYPD is doing is ultimately the right way to go, but you can't get there by comparing it to the typical E2EE debate.
I'm not comparing it to E2EE. I'm stating there is personal information in the messages. The subject doesn't have a choice to how that information is transmitted or protected. There should be a duty for the government to protect that person's info if they have the power to force the person to disclose it.
Most recording are not by default public record either. Oftentimes it needs to be censored before being released to protect sensitive information, like subject addresses, license numbers, etc.
"oops the records are gone. Can't rule based on absence of evidence."
Individual rights are not applicable to gov entities. Gov entities can levy fines and apply criminal charges. You're comparing apples to oranges. Every time gov moves power away from the people they're doing it for the benefit of those in power. Not for you. Even if it works now it will be abused the second the current governance is replaced.
NY, like most big cities, is already incredibly corrupt. If you believe adding more power on top is proper then you're playing football with people's lives.
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
You can't paint in black and white like that without a tool or metric for discerning good govt action from bad.
Laws against murder "take power from the people" too.
The question should always be what you, a person wants.
Even abuse, assuming it happens is a tradeoff. Is it worth it? I usually think no, but it isn't something you can take an idealist all or nothing approach on.
What are they getting over the radio that can't be recorded in person?
The people most likely to benefit from the recordings are the ones in contact. The recordings are a terrible small piece of information and are generally self-censored. Better of recording everything in person.
¿Por que no los dos? It NEVER hurts to know the radio-ins for scenes and if inaccurate information is given, if something unbecoming is shared to one officer by another, if there is conspiracy to participate in the blue wall of silence [1], and many more scenarios.
Indeed, this information can transpire in court, but it shouldn't be the People's only avenue to RECEIVE such intel. If this were to be the case, the courts would have leverage to transparency, whereas the People should have both.
You shouldn't NEED the court to start your search on proving damage from the State. You don't NEED to wait for a courthouse summons to know your rights were violated. If your prerequisites to be upset are explicitly the actions and behaviors that occur in judicial proceedings, then this country is far gone. If that's the one area you want to protect to the largest extent, then bad actors will use every other step before that one (including arrest) against you - and that's where radio comms come in.
They use cell phones for the stuff they don't want people to hear.
"If your prerequisites to be upset are explicitly the actions and behaviors that occur in judicial proceedings"
Not sure where you're getting that from. As I stated before, in person recording should have more and better information. This does not require a court.
I think I mistook one comment by another person for yours and thought you brought up that belief that only recordings of police radio should be shared - on behalf of the people - in Court. My mistake!
agreed. 90% of the time someone uses a "me..thee" phrasing, it is associated with a superficial and juvenile take.
Different standards apply in different situations. The devil is always in the details with drawing the line. Simply noticing a difference and making it rhyme is not a criticism. "sirens for me, speed limits for thee" isn't a clever point.
All these recordings can be out should be accessible in court. But everyone knows that won't always be the case.
In addition you might not know they need to be accessible
Notifications for various messaging apps dismiss when the triggering messages have been answered elsewhere. Why shouldn't other notifications self-dismiss when no longer relevant?
- Weather updates/warnings for times in the past
- "Find-My" notifications for devices no longer left behind
AppliedLogix is an design services firm based in Rochester, NY. From robotics to AI to fuel cells and alternative energy, our team of EEs, software/firmware developers, MEs, and PCB layout designers help our clients solve challenging engineering problems.
We're consistently profitable, and we've grown sustainably from 3 initial partners in 2010 to a team of 42 today. If you're an EE experienced with board-level design, fluent in Altium, who thrives in a self-managed, outcome-focused environment, let's talk.
See <https://appliedlogix.com/open-positions/> for a detailed job description and to get in touch. Candidates must be citizens or permanent US residents, located in the US.
I'm thoroughly curious what could have motivated this engineer's behavior, imperiling his livelihood and his employer's existence. I'd be unsurprised if a get-it-done-yesterday, deadline-driven, process-be-damned culture played a large role.
The sampler link from the (?) in the customizing UI is broken.
Have you tracked how many people ordered the sampler and than also ordered a real one after that?
I don't want to bother with the customize UI too much so I think you can do two things:
1. push the sampler as the main tool to find out what fits (so have it as the primary sales target)
2. make it easy to order what you like on a sample.
In general the wizard could be easier by doing:
- a step by step guide
1. choose pattern (only one possible, maybe link to the old UI for "experts")
2. choose distance
3. choose color (maybe go with a nice color picker directly)
4. done or tweak expert settings (with bug UI)
- and always showing roughly original size-zoom and full page
edit: and I agreed shipping, general pricing and payment methods would be great upfront.
And for the paper + cart steps: Keep it consistent, I accidentally skipped to the empty basked instead of putting something in the basket. I'd even make those steps part of the step-by-step guide I suggested instead of the current hierarchy.
Good input. I'm actually going to be adding more products to choose from before entering the designer, so that would be a logical point to have pricing.
They state they drew these conclusions based on 330K survey responses. Over 13M vehicles are sold in the US alone each year. For 2.5% to be a representative sample requires extremely careful control over many confounding factors.
If their 330K survey responses follow the same distribution as new vehicle sales, only about 23K of them were BEVs. That doesn't seem like a representative sample of the roughly 1M BEVs sold each year.