Nah it's because they decided to use cameras instead of LiDAR and then try to make it autonomous instead of driver aid.

AI is at its best when it's opening up productivity and freedom to think critically or leisurely, the same way sticky notes help someone study.

They have an official app LOL. You have to get it from their telegram. (I wouldn't do it tbh)

Let it be noted that this is an opinion article.

Editorials and Opinion pieces do contribute to social discourse regarding news, and may be correct, but unlike their normal news, they can say whatever they want about the news from the authors they hire.

Opinion pieces allow news sources to use sensationalist and inflammatory articles to drive engagement without harming their credibility, because of that giant OPINION label.

NYT and WSJ's editorials and opinion pieces tend to be quite left and quite right leaning respectfully, to an almost satirical level. In my opinion, the WSJ's comment section under its editorials are much worse.

I'm not disparaging the article in any way, just saying for those that may not already know.

I would like to explain some more context in the comments before people say things like "I'm denying war crimes"

This was reported a day ago, but open source intelligence had confirmed these reports 8 hours after the attack. All which has been covered in this article, even the Al Jazeera stream that caught the whole thing on camera. (Interestingly, Al Jazeera still reported that it was still caused by Israel I believe based on the same evidence.)

AP was one of the first to report the Gaza Health Ministry said, with the article titled, "Israel strikes hospital, killing 500." Over the next hours, they edited the article title 3 times, and had to emphasize that it was just a statement by the Gaza Health Ministry.

By then, it had been reported across the media landscape as an Israeli airstrike. Now, considering the past actions of Israel, like that reporter they shot a year or so ago, it's quite easy to assume that Israel bombed it and tried to cover it up. But, news organizations are not supposed to assume. Instead, we learned that the Gaza Health Ministry, an organization controlled by Hamas, should be taken with a large grain of salt.

Casualties turn out to be far less than 500, more like 50-100. I am in no way minimizing the loss of life. But from a journalistic standpoint, this is a 90% error, a total disaster in reporting.

The NYTimes put out this Editorial reflecting on the error of the Gaza Hospital, comparing it to the error in the 2002 Jenin massacre.

The rush to judgment on Tuesday night will continue to haunt us all.

I'm inclined to agree, especially upon being banned from worldnews on the lemmy.ml instance for "denying war crimes and genocide" by posting this article FROM THE NYTIMES which was reported about a day after the incident.

I'm not trying to report "Pro-Israel" Propoganda, but this should make everyone take a seat back and be very careful when reading news. This conflict is extremely divisive and it's challenging the status quo in journalism and global politics.

Additionally, news media can get it wrong, but credibility can be gained just as it can be lost, so they should be given a second chance, especially if they admit it, like the AP or the NYTimes did.

Let's not forget that the act of using civilians as shields is a warcrime in the first place to prevent this kind of situation from occurring.

If Israel tells Palestinian civilians to evacuate because there's Hamas military targets in that building, and Hamas troops tell them no. Then they die, and Hamas can cry wolf.

It would be Israel who is following international decorem and Hamas making it difficult for any country to support them.

Just now, Austria cut off aid to the Gaza region. Is that Israel's fault? Nope.

Hamas had good PR going and they fucked it up by escalating with brutality.

Morally, it's a complicated situation.

Geopolitically, Israel probably has the support of most Western nations simply due to the fact that they engage in diplomacy and have proper decorem, with a government system that is a relatively modern system despite political leanings.

Additionally, Israel has a better human rights record DOMESTICALLY than Palestine and the Gaza region. It's still dominated by religion, terrorist leaders, and its own population's semi-justified bitterness. Freedom of expression and freedom of press is heavily restricted, just like any other Islamic religious state in the middle east.

The sole responsibility of the escalation and subsequent destabilization of the region lies with Hamas. The sole responsibility of the withdrawal of Palestinian aid from countries like Austria, lies with Hamas.

And with all the videos popping up over the treatment and killing of Israeli civilians, it's hard for the Western world, and especially Western governments to garner the sympathy for the Palestinian people that they had 1 week ago.

Both sidesing isn't correct, whataboutism isn't correct, blindly supporting either side isn't correct, supporting efforts to contain the conflict is correct. The best way to do that is to monitor Israel's progress in containing Hamas.

We know that Hamas hides in schools and civilian buildings, using their own civilians as a shield. That's a warcrime it itself. So it's going to be messy as hell.

The US sent the USS Gerald Ford into the Mediterranean as a deterrent. If any country starts to try to 3rd party the conflict, oh shit oh fuck WW1 vibes. That's how tender this situation is.

And with 1 other active conflict in the world, this is shaky ground.

On the bright side, this means that Republicans may have to stop playing hardball with Ukraine, in order to not appear hypocritical.

Most support Ukrainian support, and most Western countries need Israel as a foothold in the middle east.

Well to be quite fair, it's better to judge a country by it's progress and current state of affairs than by its past actions. Because if we judged every country by their actions in the past, not many countries would have clean hands.

From 2016-2021, I was ready to move away. I was quite disillusioned by everything. What changed? Soccer 💀. Soccer made me comically nationalist for our national teams.

Honestly being in that environment of being able to be innocently prideful of my home without thinking about the past helped put things in perspective.

I'm now prideful to be American, and proud that my home heavily invests in NATO. I'm an adult now, and I've been working to push for some more improvements in things like infrastructure. I don't cringe at 4th of July celebrations anymore, and I feel great that I'm making an impact.

You probably won't see me putting a flag outside my home, but I have a lovely high quality flag.

Our national park system is the best in the world, our ecosystem, nature, and geography are spectacular and diverse. And NASA is phenomenal.

Don't allow yourself to wallow in this cynical disillusionment. It's not good for your mental health to focus on the terrible parts of America without having the ability to change those parts.

Guns are one of those things thats really hard to restrict. It's a freedom that most enjoy, and some abuse. Most that own guns responsibly don't want their guns taken away due to law changes.

This was actually the case with automatic firearms, automatic firearms were legal to buy until 1986, ironically with the support of the NRA, which is the largest gun lobby in favor of less gun control. In this ban of automatic firearms, they allowed existing owners to keep their automatics.

You can count self defense cases and crimes with those weapons on one hand, most crimes are committed with handguns.

Another argument is just banning "assault style rifles". This is basically the blanket description of an AR-15 style rifle, that is generally the same design as an M4 carbine in the military, with it's adjustable stock, 16 inch barrel, black color, with a comfy pistol grip, the automatic function removed, and an MLOK rail for attachments like lights, lasers, or sights.

The reason that this description is silly, is because a normal semi-auto hunting rifle is functionally the exact same as an "assault rifle". It has magazines and you can fire it rapidly buy pushing the trigger rapidly. You could ductape lights and lasers to it. Gun manufacturers could simply sell the same gun without the "tactical" features which are convenient for all users, and it would change nothing about crime.

Additionally, if there's a huge gun buyback and all gun owners turn in their guns because the second amendment has been repealed, criminals are not going to turn in their guns, and it would leave many defenseless.

Often times, guns are necessary for those living in rural areas, because there is a great number of threats from wildlife in rural areas, from Alligators, to Mountain Lions, to Grizzly Bears and Brown Bears and Black Bears. Hunting is required to control the ecosystems of large game and small game. Additionally, many hunters opt to use the "tactical assault style rifles" due to their modularity. (Not always, many still use bolt action rifles, when it's for sport).

Nobody in America actually has a problem with responsible gun ownership. The disagreements between states go down to magazine sizes, barrel sizes, concealed carry laws, concealed carry permits, etc.

Yes school shootings are a problem, with some troubled person shooting up a school with an "Assault style rifle". But the fact of the matter is that it makes up an extremely small minority of gun crime.

The only difference between the US and Switzerland for example, is the fact that we are allowed to use the weapons in self defense versus animals or human assailants in our homes or in public. The other difference is the process to obtain firearms.

The last reason you will see resistance against gun control comes from the left. Gun control was originally pushed by conservative Republicans in the mid 20th century as a response to the Black Panther movement, civil rights group that operated as a militia and open carried rifles around town.

There's an argument that gun control would be systemically racist agenda, because it would restrict gun control only to those with the money and time and clean records to complete the checks to complete a purchase of a firearm. It would leave minority groups less armed compared to conservative white males.

Weapons are inherently a check against violence in this way. Similar to how the world uses the fact that it can destroy each other as leverage for mutual and relative peace.

As for being able to relate this to someone from Europe who has never handled firearms or can't understand the need for them, or people stubborn about them, I can relate as someone who never felt the need to own a weapon until recently. It's quite similar to the freedom a motor vehicle gives you. You get used to the autonomy and independence that a vehicle gives you. Being able to take apart the machine, customize it, optimize it, make it yours and express yourself through that construction.

I'm not trying to draw a false equivalency, but it's the closest one I can portray.

I hope this answered your question!

:3

Self defense laws are pretty weird in Europe. I am spoiled on our second amendment laws, so let my bias be noted.

However, some guy can break into your house and if you defend yourself with a bat or knife, the laws there from what I hear (this isn't fact, I could be mistaken) can get you in trouble with the law. I remember reading that somewhere.

Sure it's like that in the US too but there are many protections for those who clearly have acted in self defense.

Getting a dumb TV with an Apple TV box has been amazing.

No ads, just turn on, and play.

Of course you'd think "ew Apple". I did but the Apple TV box is simply the best streaming device available right now. The only thing it can't do easily is sideloading and VPNs, for those the Shield is still king.

Hi! I'm sure you have a lot of feelings about the US and maybe you have a specific situation that's causing you troubles.

However, I'd recommend looking at other places in the country before looking at other places.

Moving is a huge expense, and if you lurk all the time on reddit or lemmy. You may start thinking that things are terrible, because you become emotionally invested in the outcome of a collective you can't control.

In terms of other countries, the UK is going through the aftermath of Brexit, Italy is about to elect a controversial figure, France has some questionable anti-encryption policies under it's belt. Another commenter mentioned Canadas downsides.

Looking at Asian countries like Japan and Korea, they are generally homogenous countries, and it takes much more work as a foreigner to make headway socially, with Japan moreso than Korea, to be fair. Compared to the USA, there is nary a country as diverse.

In the USA, there are many many places that can give you relative peace. Investing in local communities is much healthier than looking at huge national controversies, because usually local problems affect you more directly.

If you have the funds and resources and job security and drive to learn the language, I would say take a look at Switzerland. They're relatively stable, neutral, and it's a beautiful place there. I'd say it's still quite homogenous though.

This isn't meant to dissuade you from moving, but as someone who went through a period of depression due to the state of the country and it's affect on my life, and has now found reasons to support the US wholeheartedly despite it's problems, definitely look at quieter places in the USA, like some beach towns or mountainous towns in New Mexico.