Settlement so they don’t have to reveal anything in 3. 2. 1.

Nah. The non-GT models were also affected.

And in this case it doesn’t matter if you bought a fourth year Mach E when you’re buying from an automotive company with the most recalls in the industry year over year for like the last 5-6 years running.

https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2023/RCMN-23V687-5094.pdf

The Mach E has had so many recalls. Axle half shafts causing a clicking while turning, differential pinion shafts that shear off or fracture, a whole litany of infotainment issues, botched updates. I seem to recall something about windshield wiper motors, and a problem with some of the glass by the D pillar.

You never get the smell of burning flesh out of your nose.

I can’t refute this.

I believe they can sue though. Might depend on the law there but I was literally just watching a video of a lawyer going over what to do if your property is seized and or used in violation of your right to enjoy your property and there’s an avenue for land owners to sue.

https://youtube.com/shorts/xSlpDry0gms?is=Lr7vflRiMWBUaTVr

Don’t buy the first few years of a newly released car. Rules to live by. The Mach-E had all kinds of power train failures including fusing the high voltage battery junction box contacts open and or closed which disables the vehicle.

They’re already trying to track everything I do. Why would I help them?

This is the thing. I’m not against using tech to decide if someone is too drunk to drive. But I am against overreliance on tech to infringe the rights of others and possibly put them in danger in order to protect the public. Especially when it comes from people who don’t know how the tech works and have never used it.

If you can’t think critically about how the tech works and what the pros/cons of the tech are, then you don’t necessarily deserve to be able to make decisions like this for the masses.

You don’t have to drink to have used one. I don’t drink. I have had to use one. This comment reads like “fuck any service worker who might have to drive your car.” Fuck mechanics. Fuck tow truck drivers. Fuck EMS.

Fuck people who have health problems and can’t actually use their lung capacity to blow into the breathalyzer to release the interlock. They’ll never have an emergency and maybe have to drive anywhere.

That’s why it’s a dumb take. This isn’t about drunk driving deaths. Your “assume guilt and fuck everyone else who’s not guilty but will be put in danger over it” take is exactly what I said it was.

Have you ever had to use one? I’ve had to do it (lot attendant) and not only is it unsanitary if someone else has to drive your car, but it’s fucking hard to get the breathalyzer to actually work properly to allow you to start the car and it will go off again while you’re driving requiring you to actually breath into it again. It’s not a passive thing, you have to have the lung capacity to do it. It can be set off by false positives too. This is the dumbest take.

If (and that if is doing so much heavy lifting) they actually were probing their own AI this way, your point might be valid. But doing it secretly while still saying that AI is safe to use (like so many AI companies have done) is disingenuous.

What the article says is that Meta was directing contractors to do this to their competitors AI.

AI copied everyone else’s work and now it wants to cry about copying. Sucks to suck.

Who pays the fine when your kid gets a ticket on a leaners permit?

Do you see where I’m going with this. Either the government is going to actually put the wok in to enforce a common sense law the easiest way they can, or they’re going to do what they’ve been doing and get the results they’ve been getting while using it for their ulterior motive which is to surveil the general population.

Let’s try again. Let’s say your kid gets ahold of spray paint and vandalizes some property. Many kids and parents have been held accountable in that situation and the risk isn’t really the point, it’s just moving goal posts.

The point is that as a parent you are responsible for the safety and well being of your child. Which proves you can be held accountable.

If your child gets hold of a weapon and hurts themselves or someone else then you are liable. I don’t really see how this is much different but I’m all ears.

And yes, I am a parent who’s kid doesn’t have social media. And yes, I am aware that we need to be educating parents on how to use parental controls and enforcing their use (on platform side as well as in the home).

Which doesn’t necessarily translate into them believing or supporting age verification and privacy violation to do it.

In 2018, the European Commission slapped Google with the record-breaking penalty on the grounds that it abused Android’s mobile dominance to give unfair advantage to its own apps via pre-installation deals with smartphone makers.

GOOD. But still basically chump change if it’s spread out over years.

And the lack of a requirement for a subscription service which means the actual cost of the PlayStation 6 over a 7 year life span is something like $1800. That’s assuming the cost of a monthly PlayStation plus membership doesn’t go up and they continue to subsidize the hardware by selling it at cost. And it doesn’t include buying games.

I think I didn’t make it clear but as of 2025 they sold 7 million units. There’s conflicting information about whether they sold 7 million pairs in 2025 and more in 2023/2024 which could equal 10 million pairs though. But I haven’t found anything yet that says they’ve sold 10 million pairs in plain language.

https://thenextweb.com/news/meta-smart-glasses-privacy-crisis-apple-google-snap

Yeah I haven’t been able to verify this claim. Closest I’ve come is about 7 million units sold and that was a year or more ago.

https://www.theverge.com/tech/878184/meta-sold-7-million-smart-glasses-in-2025-thats-triple-2023-and-2024-combined