Even if it is an answer, is your suggestion to wait for a theoretical solution that hasn't appeared so far and doesn't seem to be on the horizon, to the exclusion of doing anything else?
Idealism isn't strengthening your argument.
How about doing multiple things, you know, just in case, on the very small (^minuscule,^ ^really^) off-chance you happen to be incorrect or even not fully correct ?^[As unlikely as that scenario is , i mean]
The mandate says nothing about cameras specifically.
I thought it did as well but it only specifies this :
Driver drowsiness and attention warning and advanced driver distraction warning systems shall be designed in such a way that those systems do not continuously record nor retain any data other than what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they were collected or otherwise processed within the closed-loop system. Furthermore, those data shall not be accessible or made available to third parties at any time and shall be immediately deleted after processing. Those systems shall also be designed to avoid overlap and shall not prompt the driver separately and concurrently or in a confusing manner where one action triggers both systems.
Don't get me wrong, manufacturers are going to have a fucking field day with all of the shit they'll try and get in under this banner of "safety" and they will almost certainly work their monetisation shenanigans in around this.
It might seem like that wording prohibits data collection, but it doesn't cover all the bases a team of well paid lawyers would be able to come up with. Or they could just do what they normally do and just ignore the "no data collection" part and pay the ~~cost of doing business tax~~ fine and rake in multiples of that fine in profits.
My point is , it doesn't specify cameras, so theoretically a company could come up with a non-face-scanning way of doing this and use that instead.
will they ?....fuck no...but they could if they wanted to.
Which is arguably worse.
edit : A note to say that I'm not arguing against the safety aspects of this , they might be fully valid, i'm arguing that it'll be abused for profit in any way the companies think will give them a positive ROI.
I meant 'forced' as in ' forced by their capitalist greed and culture ' not like there's an actual threat to anything but the quarterly bonuses of the current golden parachute holder.
Eventually, perhaps they'll fuck up enough for it to be an existential threat to the company.
I'm the meantime they'll just continue pretending copilot is a serious contender outside of their walled garden and probably lay off a few thousand people they don't care about, to balance the numbers.
Edit : "a few days later" - https://lemmy.world/post/48874177
TL;DR;
Capitalists gonna capitalise,
Fiscal gain is always going to be the reason behind decisions, even if it doesn't seem like it on the face of it.
Especially microsoft, with it's history.
I'll preface this with, this is just my opinion etc...
I say must, should, has to, etc with the conviction of my opinion, not proof of objective fact.
i have some insight into the subject/industry but nothing i'd be willing to verify with anyone, so make of that what you will.
It's less a specific thing to point to and more of a general "profit driven company is going to make profit driven decisions", even if perceived altruism was deemed the best fiscal decision, the primary goal is still commercial viability.
A full extra year of security updates requires resources.
Unless they are doing something wildly outside the norms of software development, that means development, testing, deployment, hosting, tooling, marketing/PR, support and more.
There's both CapEx and OpEx costs to that kind of endeavour.
For a product of any size that's a non-zero resource cost, for a product the size of windows that's a big number, perhaps not in the grand scheme, but it's a non-trivial amount.
That is historically not the kind of thing that microsoft would do/has done just for the altruistic benefit of it's users.
Feel free to provide examples to the contrary, i'd be pleasantly surprised.
So assuming it's not altruism that drives this decision, the only other conclusion i could come up with was commercial viability/profit/money.
That might be a failure of imagination on my part.
The projected cost of not doing this must outweigh the projected benefit of going through with it.
Be that in goodwill, user/customer retention, PR, straight up sales or something else, there must be a benefit that outweighs the cost of just dropping support.
I could speculate on specifics but it'd mostly be rehashing the thousands of articles on poor decisions (and poor timing) around the whole win 11 rollout and windows in general.
i don't mean this from an old man shouts at cloud viewpoint, i don't particularly care for windows(or microsoft) but I'm not a rabid hater.
Microsoft has some good products that i use regularly, despite their constant and repeated attempts to enshittify all of the end user experiences they can in pursuit of fiscal gain.
That being said, the win 11 rollout has been a shambles on many fronts.
Microsoft is forced to provide another year of security updates because a series of historic and ongoing colossal fuckups have made it more commercially viable for them to do so than the alternative.
There is no "give" here, they are doing it for themselves, that the user potentially benefits is incidental.
yeah there's a bunch f performance bumps you can get with a fixed end platform and a whole company invested in making games that run on their platform perform well.
You can also plug headphone directly in to the controller (although you've probably seen that).
nightmare for battery life if your headphones are above average impedance though.
(or maybe it's just my headphones, i'm not an audio snob, who knows?)
You’re also not mentioning that even the base ps5, which was released 6 years ago, performs better than a Steam Machine.
is that based on the specs or some reviews somewhere ?
edit: nvm, looked it up
6700(ish) for ps5 OG
vs
7600 for steam machine
pretty close , though ps5 probably wins due to very specific optimizations for games compiled for that platform.
I'm seeing 7700xt for ps5 pro, not sure if that's correct but it certainly beats a 7600.
that's an easy one.
google is an ad company, their main customers are the people who buy ads, pretending you need a toilet seat let's them charge toilet seat makers more to "target" you
Sure, didn't say they would, capitalist companies gonna capitalise.
In the same way capitalist governments are gonna capitalise....by serving the interests of capitalist companies.
Hit me up when these magical regulations of yours get applied and enforced for a value more than the profits produced by ignoring them.
I mean it, I'm all for the regulations, I just don't think it should be the only basket in which to place eggs, but you do you.
Meanwhile , i'll also be not spending money on products that don't serve my interests, it's not the definition of "being fleeced" that I'd use but you seem confident enough that I'll look it up and check.
And by all means, you can buy your PlayStation's (not the disc ones obviously, that would be stupid, unless the regulations for that are also imminent?) , ready for the day when those regulations come in to force (in the near future, I assume).
Because NOT buying user-hostile products is for chumps who don't believe their government has their best interests at heart... or something?