this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2025
605 points (99.5% liked)

Not The Onion

18289 readers
1335 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 52 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The entire reason they’re deploying AI in the battlefields is to avoid accountability for those firing. The lack of accountability is an intended feature, not a bug.

[–] bigbabybilly@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

A troubling conclusion I hadn’t yet come to. God damn.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

They’re not being subtle about it. The weapons companies are offering it as a selling point at the conventions.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 47 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Ticket the damn manufacturer. They need to be made to understand not to put substandard devices into public hands

[–] FuckFascism@lemmy.world 16 points 6 days ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 28 points 6 days ago

Easy, Just impound it. When they have to deal with going to get them in person, they'll stop the illegal shit

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 24 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

Doesn't the car have an owner? Because in Brazil, the ticket always goes to the owner, even when someone else is driving - something that has its share of problems

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 11 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

That's how a lot of US states do it for speed cameras.

Just realized I'm not sure if the same happens when you get pulled over or are driving a rental but in general the idea fixes more problems than it causes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago

How did you make these legal and not put in place a process for this? Absolutely corrupt incompetence.

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 8 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Shut it down and impound it? It's a fucking piece of MALFUNCTIONAL equipment, SHUT IT DOWN.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 15 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

You know, we should re-assess many assumptions in light of emerging technologies. Even the conceptual value of labour is becoming more and more obsolete as AI and automation comes. We need a new Marx in relation to data as leverage to demand social equity, as in advocate for universal basic income/utility. Tech barons stole our data to train AI and automation, it's only right we bear fruit from our personal information.

[–] badgermurphy@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Be careful what you wish for. UBI assumes a small group in power will, while having all the resources in their hands, fairly distribute them to everyone and never use them as a bargaining chip to force our compliance with whatever actions they're trying to take.

The whole UBI idea seems like a trap for the general public to accept the notion that it inevitable that a small oligarchic group must have all the resources consolidated to them, to stop us from working towards a true egalitarian economy.

There is no time I am aware of in history where a large group in power distributed vast resources to the community without being compelled to do so by threat of force.

[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That sounds concerning, but how is it different from regular taxes to collect & distribute the funds?

I mean, besides the obvious push from them to reduce taxes to 0% as they already do in the States.

[–] badgermurphy@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Taxes are redistribution of the capital of the general populace of the governed area. UBI is different in that it proposes a special tax only on the capital class where wealth is concentrated, which is then used to supplement the incomes of the general populace, with the most future-utopian thinkers envisioning UBI replacing income and work entirely some day in a super-automated future.

The point of great concern to me is that people bought in to the idea will not resist the ownership class' attempts to consolidate resources and capital into fewer and fewer hands, because they believe those are stepping stones on the path to UBI. Then, when the capital class has got all the resources and control all the production, what force on Earth can make sure they follow through on the redistribution?

That last question is rhetorical. If someone's got all the money, food, and weapons, there is no such force on Earth.

Edit to add another note: Observe how the capital class already actively seeks to avoid taxation at every turn, and are typically successful. I believe a government to successfully implement UBI, it would have to be somehow completely free of corruption from moneyed lobbying.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Aeao@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (26 children)

Well if my choices are

A) live in a tyrannical oligarchy where a few powerful people hold all the power and don’t value me at all

Or

B) live in a tyrannical oligarchy where a few powerful people hold all the power and don’t value me at all but I have money for food…

Man that’s a tough choice. I’ll go with B

load more comments (26 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 5 days ago

Okay so they can't give it a citation. However aren't there seperate laws that could be employed? If a car is not roadworthy they are not allowed to let it continue the journey. Like without light at night, or with a missing wheel.

When a driverless car autonomously breaks rules of the road, doesn't that make it a malfunctioning piece of equipment. One that is dangerous to let continue?

[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I wonder, if they hinder the car enough, wouldn't that cause the remote operator to connect to it? Sounds like you've now identified a driver :-)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] hayvan@feddit.nl 2 points 5 days ago

Issue a ticket to the owner of the car. Let them contest in court that they were not driving it.

load more comments
view more: next ›