This is likely because the DMSP satellites are outdated:
"In 2015, Congress voted to terminate the DMSP program and to scrap the DMSP 5D-3/F20 satellite, ordering the Air Force to move on to a next-generation system." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Meteorological_Satelli...
“In 2023, we blocked or removed over 5.5 billion ads, slightly up from the prior year, and suspended 12.7 million advertiser accounts, nearly double from the previous year,” the platform told us at the time.
I wonder what proportion of those 5.5 billion inappropriate ads were removed only after people watched and reported them.
If your HW/OS doesn't allow verification of binaries, but your threat model requires doing that, then you need to use proper HW/OS that allows the verification. Also, iOS is proprietary so who knows what the OS is doing anyway. Also, this https://thehackernews.com/2014/01/DROPOUTJEEP-NSA-Apple-iPho...
If you are in the EU you can build the app from source and sideload it on your phone. Everyone else is out of luck. So yeah, either Signal or Apple can insert a backdoor into the app.
Crash data for all other ADAS systems is already public [1]. The only manufacturer with heavily redacted information in that data to the point of being useless is Tesla.
No serious analysis can be done when we can’t even tell if a crash occurred under FSD Supervised or Autopilot because they’re two very different things with different capabilities. Same with withholding software/hardware versions and narrative of events.
Tesla also has a problem of their telematics underreporting crashes. One of the reasons for that is they don’t consider it a crash if airbags don’t deploy. This was called out by the NHTSA in a prior investigation: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2022/INCR-EA22002-14496.pdf.
Here’s the relevant paragraph from that report:
> Gaps in Tesla's telematic data create uncertainty regarding the actual rate at which vehicles operating with Autopilot engaged are involved in crashes. Tesla is not aware of every crash involving Autopilot even for severe crashes because of gaps in telematic reporting. Tesla receives telematic data from its vehicles, when appropriate cellular connectivity exists and the antenna is not damaged during a crash, that support both crash notification and aggregation of fleet vehicle mileage. Tesla largely receives data for crashes only with pyrotechnic deployment, which are a minority of police reported crashes.
One is a paid version where Tesla opts to drive safer, and if you don’t pay then Tesla is allowed to drive more dangerously? Seems like a jury would question why Tesla would allow a version that is known to be less safe.
When I look at this data, I see the type of self driving in use, as well as the written narrative of every crash, along with several other fields as REDACTED FOR BUSINESS REASONS, only for Tesla vehicles, where every other manufacturer seems to have these fields populated. To me, that information would be crucial to understanding what actually happened in each case, as opposed to only being able to understand some of the ambient conditions around each accident.
Granted there are some other rows with missing or incomplete information, but Tesla appears to be the only manufacturer for which this information is withheld in every single instance without exception.
> Granted there are some other rows with missing or incomplete information, but Tesla appears to be the only manufacturer for which this information is withheld in every single instance without exception.
Again, not true.
I just filtered for BMW, and in every single instance, without fail, the ADS/ADAS Version cell is either redacted or blank.
Did a quick check and yeah, there's a lot of redaction/blanks in `ADAS/ADS System Version`
Rpts RdBl Pcage Entity
48 12 25.00 Ford Motor Company
18 6 33.33 Rivian Automotive, LLC
10 4 40.00 Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
29 12 41.38 Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
38 18 47.37 Lucid USA, Inc.
27 15 55.56 Hyundai Motor America
37 22 59.46 Kia America, Inc.
6 4 66.67 APTIV
6 5 83.33 Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
12 10 83.33 Daimler Trucks North America, LLC
159 156 98.11 Honda (American Honda Motor Co.)
126 124 98.41 Subaru of America, Inc.
3003 3001 99.93 Tesla, Inc.
1 1 100.00 Nuro
2 2 100.00 Mazda North American Operations
6 6 100.00 Chrysler (FCA US, LLC)
71 71 100.00 BMW of North America, LLC
7 manufacturers don't have that field populated with useful information. I consider 124 out of 126 reports redacted or blank to be close enough to "every single instance" for this argument, for example. Furthermore, over half have over half blank or redacted, and the lowest is 25% missing info.
I don't own nor do I want to own a Tesla, but stuff like this is what gets reported and the corrections or actual facts get buried in the resulting noise. I don't really even care that this is about tesla, even.
If this was some sort of rendering or CSV error on your part, then that could happen at CBS or msnbc just as easily, and tomorrow the headlines scream "Tesla only automaker shirking reporting responsibilities"
>and the crash involves a vulnerable road user being struck or results in a fatality, an air bag deployment, or any individual being transported to a hospital for medical treatment.
The "We'll wait" isn't really seen as effective discourse here like it on on Reddit/Twitter. Just state your argument and let it stand on its own without the perceived "mic drop".
How can we know this group chat was really comprised of government officials and not some bored teenagers? Signal allows you to set your profile name to anything you like.
> Brian Hughes, the spokesman for the National Security Council, responded two hours later, confirming the veracity of the Signal group. “This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain,”
They used signal and included a journo...a web-page highlighting an 'error', may take a while to appear. Especially as some poor mf has to make a page that doesn't criticize la presidentino.
Watch the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing from earlier today. You can hear one of the participants in that chat acknowledge that he's in it and it's real in response to the questions of committee members.
The natural and insider language of the chat, and (especially) the perfect timing of the strikes with the planning in the tread, also make it extremely unlikely this was anything but a genuine conversation, even without confirmation. The alternative is a combination of a very-prepared fraudster with either their own source of privileged information (to get the timing right) or else an incredible coincidence such that their entirely fake and uninformed planning matched the timing set out in the real planning. That it was genuine is far, far more likely than either of those (one of which raises its own, different security concerns, anyway)
reply