> That drive fucking sucks ass, don't get me wrong, but oh well, that's part of life

Such a great attitude. Wish everyone saw it this way. I've tanked a few car rides like this but I'll do it a hundred more times before I throw a pacifier at my kids.

I don't think that the entirety of the public commons needs 100% uptime. Occasional disruption could happen for any number of reasons like temporary events, construction, and protest [0].

"Immediate" action is such a strange requirement to have. Such a desire seems like a waste of police time. Like in TFA's example , the commons were ever so slightly disrupted: anyone could have gone around the woman. Occasional minor to moderate disruption of the commons for the purposes of free expression is a feature of our society that I think should be maintained.

[0] https://www.aclusocal.org/know-your-rights/protesters/

I dunno about you, but that's not really how I want our society to work.

As other people have point out, the robot could have navigated around the blockage. Just as you could walk away from someone bothering you without getting the police involved lol.

How do you know this?

> All of this "AI is going to kill us" marketing

The "marketing" this week came from someone that had given up their stake in OAI (Coxon), so I'm more inclined to believe them.

> pull the ladder up

From what I've seen (e.g., Dario's latest essay), AI safety registration proposals aim to target frontier labs whose models have reached a certain threshold. It doesn't seem like trying to pull up any ladder, just making sure the ladder doesn't go too high too fast.

I didn't get it at first, either, and the Wikipedia article didn't do it for me. This explanation finally got me there: https://florian.github.io/reservoir-sampling/

First, bullshitting in meatspace isn't much of an advantage. To the extent that it is, there is always video calling. What matters for agent training is going to be the output from said bullshitting. You're not really maintaining any moat by going to the office.

And then on the other side, going to the office pretty much sucks. Unless you live close to the office, you're probably looking at least an hour on either side of your day commutting. Using that saved time to work extra at home is an obvious tactical error that I hope people aren't making. I sure as hell don't.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49524734

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Totally agreed. My point is that their layman use of "ownership" is inaccurate at best, misleading at worst. I'm speaking to the words as they are commonly understood, not the legal definition.

You're probably right this this problem is not unique to Flock: other SaaS companies probably make the same misleading claims about ownership.

I'm one of the general public that is continually confused by their usage of the word "own". I can't imagine that their language update will make it any more clear.

If the data is on Flock's servers (it is) and accessible by Flock (it is) then it is Flock who owns the data, not the PDs. Sure, they can allow the PDs to have say over what is done with the data, but ultimately Flock has the ability to use the data however they'd like.

This is not hypothetical: Flock have used previously shared data with DHS [0] without the so-called owner's permission and use data for their AI training [1] without option to opt-out.

Their definition of ownership is further contradicted later in this post:

> we will now require case codes for all law enforcement searches by the end of the year.

To be clear, I think this is a good change, but if PDs "own" their data, then they should be able to decide whether or not they want to use this feature.

All in all, this is not ownership.

[0] - https://apnews.com/article/immigration-abortion-license-plat...

[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/apr/...

But you can still do all those things from the book. Don't do the things you don't want to do.