Depends on how close they can be made in watt-hours per kilo. They might be good enough for vehicles once the technology comes into reasonably widespread use, while avoiding a lot of the issues with trying to acquire sufficient lithium.
Sounds like it.
At some point, that car won’t be cost-effective to repair, and you’ll want to replace it. Be a lot better to have strong privacy legislation in place when that happens.
More that peoples’ movement data isn’t worth much, so it wouldn’t be a big deal to impose legal requirements on keeping it private.
This is timely in light of JD Vance’s comments about wanting to surveil the body of every woman in America. I just dropped a new investigation into car companies selling off your private location data to shady data brokers. The case for federal privacy legislation has never been stronger.
per the article, it’s rather better than that.
Pretty much anything trying to predict human behavior is a heuristic; people using them as if they’ve got some kind of certainty is a problem.
My impression from the article is more that they’re not doing any kind of garbage-in assessment: nobody is making sure they’re getting answers about the right person (eg: some women date more than one guy) and some women don’t feel safe giving accurate answers to the police, and there aren’t good failsafes available for when it’s wrong; you’re forced to hire legal counsel and pursue a change via the courts.
Not in the same detailed minute-by-minute tracking of where you’ve been.
They’re also buying tracking data from phone apps, so you’d need to make sure you’re not running any of those either.
Removed by mod
It’s a gift link, so you shouldn’t hit the paywall unless you’ve disabled javascript or are using a browser extension which strips off URL parameters
The value is that it shows people who aren’t using EVs yet what’s available
The ML tool is a summary of the directions. That’s a plausible use of ML
Because it’s a pain to go do (and was especially so in the film era) and it change what the photo conveys in a meaningful way.
Think of for example a photo like this, showing anti-civil-rights protesters in 1969:
Blurring the faces would meaningfully obscure what was going on, and confuse people about who held what kinds of views.
In the US, kinda sorta.
Advertisers are liable if they use your likeness to promote a product, imply endorsement, or otherwise make commercial use of it without your consent. This gives you the right to sue, which is worth absolutely nothing when you’re dealing with a shady overseas shell company hawking fake Viagra.
News organizations, artists, and random private individuals can publish a photo or other image of you taken in a place where you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy without having to contact you or have your consent. This is important: think of trying to share a photograph of a public event, and having to track down people in the background, or create public awareness when you photograph politician committing a crime.
It’s considered a civil dispute. You can sue to those using your face in an ad for monetary damages, which in practice means you’re trying to sue an overseas shell corporation with no assets, and can’t get anything, so no lawyer will represent you.
Yes, that’s the hope. It’s still more expensive than silicon cells. But this gives it a plausible path to commercial viability.
The scams are designed as alzheimers screening tools. Teaching will help some people, but not that many.