Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | c22's commentslogin

100%. The other day I needed to record a small snippet of audio so I installed some random audio recorder app from the app marketplace. It worked fine, but I could only see and replay my audio clip from inside the app, so the first thing I did was "share" it to my email which thankfully arrived as an attached .m4a file I could actually work with.

This sounds about right. When Uber's driverless car killed someone they got off pretty easy:

*"In March 2019, Arizona prosecutors ruled that Uber was not criminally responsible for the crash. The back-up driver of the vehicle was charged with negligent homicide, pled guilty to endangerment, and was sentenced to three years' probation." [0]

0:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Elaine_Herzberg


So.. there's a driver in driverless cars. A fall guy that will take all the blame should the company needs to produce someone to be arrested, but don't otherwise have leverage to earn a decent living

>So.. there's a driver in driverless cars. A fall guy that will take all the blame should the company needs to produce someone to be arrested

Are you seriously pretending the driver doesn't have agency here? This accident was easily preventable by the safety driver, which makes the "fall guy" characterization misleading. Sure, maybe there was some risk of complacency, but what's the alternative? Should uber have gone full workplace surveillance and have a camera trained on the safety driver's face, to make sure she was paying attention?


But.. they did have that? What a bizarre argument.

And yes, if you make software that drives the car, release it into public traffic, and then your software runs someone over that would be plainly visible to a reasonable human driver (the misleading dashcam footage you release to make it seem way too dark [to a shitty dashcam sensor] notwithstanding) - you should absolutely bear responsibility! How is that even a question? You did that! Not whoever you put there as a "safety driver". We can adjudicate their responsibility separately, but it's certainly not 100%.


>you should absolutely bear responsibility!

You're conveniently omitting the fact it's a self driving car prototype and that the safety driver is supposed to catch failures.


>When Uber's driverless car killed someone they got off pretty easy:

The driverless car that very much had a safety driver, which got distracted because she was watching TV shows on her phone?


The driverless car which, as well as having an insufficient and negligent safety driver (a regime that the Air Transport and Train industries would be happy to provide the hundred years worth of evidence that allows us to know ahead of time that this is not going to work), also had safety devices disabled.

The point being, you shouldn't be allowed to just hand off liability to someone you know won't handle it. I don't care what you put in any contract, hiring someone should not be a get out of liability free card. You should be on the hook for putting in the effort required to be confident that liability is managed well.

You should in fact not be allowed to do something dangerous, but say you were not liable because the danger was someone else's responsibility. No! The danger was your responsibility, no matter who you hire to manage it!


>also had safety devices disabled.

I don't see how that's a relevant point less those safety devices are mandatory. If my windshield broke, I was too lazy to fix it, and that resulted in auto-braking not working, then I was involved in an accident that could have been stopped with auto-braking, should I get extra flak because I didn't have auto-braking, even though it's not mandated?

>The point being, you shouldn't be allowed to just hand off liability to someone you know won't handle it. I don't care what you put in any contract, hiring someone should not be a get out of liability free card. You should be on the hook for putting in the effort required to be confident that liability is managed well.

The OP was talking about criminal responsibility. Obviously they should be responsible in civil court and pay damages, same as if UPS had one of its drivers crash into some kid. But should they be criminally responsible?


How well would you handle being paid to do nothing without distractions, 8 hours every day?

Train drivers seem to manage fine just fine. There are even train systems that are largely automated, with the driver largely relegated to being a "safety driver" and monitoring the doors.

Trains hit hundreds of people and thousands of vehicles every year, but we made it not their responsibility because you can't stop the train in time. You cannot accurately measure the comparison, since whether or not they were paying attention when they hit someone is both unknown and irrelevant.

No ad has ever converted me yet the ad networks keep showing me ads.

Is this due to them being irrelevant or you being stubborn against ads. It's possible you would enjoy these goods and services if you tried them out.

You can allow the liquid to evaporate off in an evaporation pond, or combine it with an absorbent gel. Then the solids can be put in trash.

I assume no one actually does this when washing their car.

Cashflow from renting to a franchisee must be fantastic. You pick the locations and the decor. If the business does well you prosper, but if the business does poorly you're insulated from the downside, the rent is due either way! If the franchisee can't hack it you repossess the building and rent it to some other suc^H^H^Hfranchisee.

McDonald's is invested in franchisee's success, it wouldn't be a great business otherwise.

It's actually hilarious sometimes. The business models that generate most scorn and incredulity on HN are the straightforward ones. They convert labor pretty much directly to a very basic product with a clear demand by society, that can't possibly be profitable, are we sure it's not actually a front for Real Estate or AI or Tax Evasion?

I'm sure real estate is the primary business model of McDonald's but franchisees wouldn't be paying the rent and fees if the restaurant model itself wasn't very profitable.

Most restaurants in Europe generate an average of 250k in net cash flow per average restaurant, that's few years of work before ROI.


It's very easy to lose money running a McDonald's (or any restaurant) if you do not keep a very close eye on all your controllable expenses. Most franchisees need multiple stores to cover all the overhead and actually be profitable.

McDonalds's Corp, the landlord, is in a better position but they also don't want to see stores fail, it's bad for their image.


Have you tried setting up a tub of water at home and gluing some magnets to some rubber ducks? When my son was 7 I would pay him his weekly allowance and he would get distracted and leave it on some random table and walk away. It's likely the act of fishing for ducks is more appealing in this instance than any potential ROI calculation.


Serial number scanning is a common feature of electronic cash counters (also networking!) I'm pretty sure all incoming serial numbers are scanned and checked against a database to find stolen banknotes. I don't know if any banks are tracking outgoing serial numbers, but it would be pretty trivial to implement. I've noticed when I go in and withdraw cash from a human teller that the cash no longer comes from a drawer, but rather is dispensed by an automatic cash handling machine and then handed to me.


You can just add this to your contract if you think there's a good shot at success.


Apparently, in this case, the license _did_ in fact forbid this usage, which is why they changed logo in the first place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Oxley#Twitter_Bird_Logo_...


You can also be a generous person, and share a few pennies from your pocket.


No one wants to deal with a 0.0001% or 0.00001% royalty clause in an individual contact.


Ah, come to France, maybe that explains my "sure of myself" answer in the parent comment. 0.0*01% + "à-valoir" is very common and cover the situation described here (eg you get paid a paid royalty, in advance, if the revenue ever exceed you are owed it, but if it's always under you never have to pay back).

Sort of a "I pay you 100€ but if this turns out to be a billion euro thing you get you gold ticket too".


The last paragraph is the punchline.


Give it a network, but don't allow that network to access the internet.


If it can't phone home, it's not connected.

A technical solution would presumably spoof the spaff but with E2EE and DoH is it possible? So then what, hacking firmware? I guess then TVs get a hard lifespan limit.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: