cm0002

Dallas Goes Dystopia, Outfits Garbage Trucks With ‘AI Cameras’ To Generate ‘Blight’ Citations

British paratrooper killed by explosion in Ukraine, coroner rules

Interesting how he mentions LLMs have a 50% error rate, and predicts how no one will pay for a tool with such a poor rate.

‘They want to displace us’: Israel launches new demolition of West Bank olive groves

After airlines, which industry do you want furries to take over next?

OpenAI safety leader quits, warning AI company’s culture is ‘broken’

In 2024, these voters were an essential part of the winning Republican coalition. Now, many feel abandoned and furious, complicating the party’s chances in November.

Sept. 30, 2026

Jessica Cantu Vuittonet, who runs a coffee shop in San Benito, Texas, cast her first ballot in 2024 — for Donald Trump. Two years later, after her brother was deported, she feels angry and betrayed.

Ariel Salinas, who owns a construction company in McAllen, Texas, can no longer reliably find laborers for his work crews. He blames the president’s immigration policies for his financial headaches.

In more than two dozen interviews across the region in recent weeks, Hispanic voters said they were furious over the president’s approach to immigration and the economy — the very problems they had counted on him to fix.

FedEx believes $300M electric truck spend will save them $800M in diesel

Remarkably preserved feathered dinosaur discovered in China reveals new secrets of flying-predator evolution

Milt Windler, NASA flight director who helped save Apollo 13, dies at 94

A sluggish Congress punts a long list of tasks until after the election

I made up the title b/c the URL is to the court's finding. Doesn't have a title per se.

TLDR (ruling is 38 pages, so this is BRIEF gd!)

Driver was stopped for following too close. Officer gave warning, but no citation. Officer ran ALPR history, then searched car based on ALPR. Driver admitted to having marijuana in the vehicle, which officer said he didn't care about, and was only after hard drugs. ALPR history had driver driving a long distance for a short visit to the state.

Court ruled:

1. Traffic stop was legal and justified by observed violation. Officer had reasonable basis to stop driver.

2. The subsequent search was NOT constitutional, since officer did not have a warrant for ALPR data, and had no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Result from ruling,

(Driver) has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location data which tracked her movements over several weeks. .... The ALPR search was an unreasonable governmental intrusion of protected privacy rights.

Vehicle search result was quashed.

There's lots more nuance in the linked filing. Also citations. It's really good IMO. It balances the privacy of the driver's vehicle with the legit justification for the stop. It also notes how "persistent, dragnet surveilence" differs from other kinds. Kudos to judge Sara Hill for really good nuanced ruling, esp around pg 28+ of the ruling talking about constitutional issues.

It's long but totally worth a read. The case does not set a binding precedent.

The legal situation is FAR from perfect. But I hope just once we can have a thread where a ton of ppl don't immediately go, "this good privacy news is useless b/c it does not solve every single problem every single time!" It is evidence in favor of a slow but meaningful shift in ALPR jurisprudence. It stands along side recent SCOTUS rulings that also do that, like Chatrie v United States and Carpenter v United States.

I made up the title b/c the URL is to the court's finding. Doesn't have a title per se.

TLDR (ruling is 38 pages, so this is BRIEF gd!)

Driver was stopped for following too close. Officer gave warning, but no citation. Officer ran ALPR history, then searched car based on ALPR. Driver admitted to having marijuana in the vehicle, which officer said he didn't care about, and was only after hard drugs. ALPR history had driver driving a long distance for a short visit to the state.

Court ruled:

1. Traffic stop was legal and justified by observed violation. Officer had reasonable basis to stop driver.

2. The subsequent search was NOT constitutional, since officer did not have a warrant for ALPR data, and had no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

Result from ruling,

(Driver) has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location data which tracked her movements over several weeks. .... The ALPR search was an unreasonable governmental intrusion of protected privacy rights.

Vehicle search result was quashed.

There's lots more nuance in the linked filing. Also citations. It's really good IMO. It balances the privacy of the driver's vehicle with the legit justification for the stop. It also notes how "persistent, dragnet surveilence" differs from other kinds. Kudos to judge Sara Hill for really good nuanced ruling, esp around pg 28+ of the ruling talking about constitutional issues.

It's long but totally worth a read. The case does not set a binding precedent.

The legal situation is FAR from perfect. But I hope just once we can have a thread where a ton of ppl don't immediately go, "this good privacy news is useless b/c it does not solve every single problem every single time!" It is evidence in favor of a slow but meaningful shift in ALPR jurisprudence. It stands along side recent SCOTUS rulings that also do that, like Chatrie v United States and Carpenter v United States.

By photographer @pwnicholson@lemmy.world

Bizarre New Websites Are Designed Specifically to Spark Dopamine in Your Brain