-
Posts
3,184 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Status Updates
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store Home
Everything posted by wanderingfool2
-
I agree, the guy had a bit of annoying voice. For those who don't really want to watch all of it; at least skip to 1:01:24 [the tl;dr up to that point, the guy used a sound/music that dbrand has made and dbrand called him out and he has at this point offered to credit them] and try to watch to 1:07:07 mark Honestly, though that message is terrible...like seriously anyone at least look at that set of DM's that were posted. That is outright asking someone initially to hand over things that would be under an NDA [only to respond 6 minutes later after seeing it was read without a response]. Actually I'd argue that what dbrand might be illegal, whether it's the attempt at corporate espionage of trade secrets, to them outright asking him to pay after he complied with what they already agreed upon [it's definitely at least an abuse of power].
-
German automotive club ADAC warns against retractable door handles
wanderingfool2 replied to Senzelian's topic in Off Topic
You literally are the one that's stating it has no safety benefits; which it clearly does. I'm telling you about other people and like an ostrich you stick you head in the sand pretending your statement should only apply to you and no the average person. Simple fact is I don't care about you, or what my typical drive is like...WHAT is important is the concept that on average it should be better for people, yet you are stating it's not -
German automotive club ADAC warns against retractable door handles
wanderingfool2 replied to Senzelian's topic in Off Topic
You are being ignorant because YOU are the one who keeps making claims with the stupid notion that you can compare mirrors to cameras simply and make the stupid argument that there is zero benefit to cameras...and when people point out that you are wrong you use the argument that "driver error" should somehow not count. Fact is 25% of people don't properly check their mirrors for proper alignment...and yet you are being ignorant in dismissing that cameras can do better jobs than mirrors. As was mentioned already, cameras can offer a better FOV, it can also provide better night vision, it can also provide additional features like emergency warnings of collisions/lane keeping warnings...this whole discussion is in place because you are being too dense to recognize that scenarios happen that are beyond what YOU are experiencing. -
German automotive club ADAC warns against retractable door handles
wanderingfool2 replied to Senzelian's topic in Off Topic
You are being asinine in thinking that it's a black and white thing. Just because someone doesn't check for alignment doesn't mean they don't check it at all. People will often realize that their mirror is out of sorts when they are driving because they go to use it and it's out of position. You are the one claiming it has no benefit; yet are ignorant to the fact that it does provide benefits. Good for you, go stick your head in the sand like an ostrich does and ignore the realities. Since we are going to just make things up, cameras don't ever spontaneously fail /s. The simple fact is if you google "wing mirror fell off" you will find that yes there are lots of people out there that have mirrors fall off while driving. Simple fact is, it's wrong to state that cameras have no benefits of mirrors; when in fact they do when you apply it to the average driver. -
German automotive club ADAC warns against retractable door handles
wanderingfool2 replied to Senzelian's topic in Off Topic
You really do lack the awareness of context. 25% of people not checking mirrors is that of checking before driving...which is my whole point that if you mirror gets knocked those 25% of people will be driving with effectively a non operating mirror. It's not that 25% NEVER check their mirror. First, it's not completely un-drivable. You have to drive differently and do more rigorous checks; BUT you can still technically check all your blindspots in most vehicles without the mirror...just it takes more time off your eyes looking forward on the road [so you need to be more mindful of your follow distance etc]. Also, wing mirrors DO actually occasionally "spontaneously fail". Especially if you are driving on a bumpy road, it can break the connectors and have it fall off. Also, there is the whole reason why wing mirrors normally fail...in that someone accidently hits it [and wing mirrors are easier to hit in that they stick out of your vehicle]. So it's more likely to accidently clip your side mirrors than it would be to lets say damage a repeater camera. Other things that cause the mirrors to become useless, rain collecting onto the mirrors and mud getting splashed by a passing truck Camera systems as well typically don't just die while operating, most times it will be if it's turned off it doesn't turn back on...or a lot of the time you can notice that it's starting to go [depending on the failure mode, it manifests itself as a blurry blob or the feed starts to flicker]. Finally, see my point above, people not checking their mirrors and starting to drive IS a frequent thing. If you are in a parking lot with narrow stalls and frequent traffic, you are a lot more likely to have the mirror knocked out of position; and for that high percentage of people who don't check it before driving yes it becomes an issue and something a camera system does fix. -
Except that you can get people who know each other's sign ins and cover for each other. It happens, I've seen managers even cover for their employees before [and a lot of the times the managers would claim "there was an issue while he was clocking out". If it was as simple as you claim, I'm sure they would be doing it...except the reason is more likely that they are having issue with people logging/clocking their hours correctly. siphon their biometrics??? Are you seriously trying to claim that it's a ploy to get their biometrics. Seriously, facebook has so many people's faces; and most people you can find a photo of online. Your face hash that McDonald's uses wouldn't really be valuable at all.
-
Should be noted as well, facial recognition as well tends to build up based on hashes...so it's not like you actually be able to recreate the face from the hash. e.g. A few ways that it can keep a hash, using the distance between your eyes, nose width/length, width between cheek bones, and distance from eyes to mouth. Even with storing those numbers you can get decently accurate results and the key is it really isnt like it's storing sensitive data. As long as the data is only used for work related purposes, I really don't see too much of the big deal that people seem to have. Even if they kept your data after you left, what harm is there? If they get hacked sure...but they will have far more important information on you. I don't really see much of a market for a face hash. Especially when you consider that most people if you knew their name, places they worked, etc you could easily find most people's faces online and do it anyways. I am lactose intolerant, the amount of times [before digital ordering screens] I would ask for a hamburger and get a cheeseburger instead. Honestly, I would so love a fully automated McDonalds...then maybe it would actually be affordable again *relative to the quality*
-
A lot of biometric scanners don't work nearly as well as one would expect. Handprint scanners fail if someone has swollen hands. Fingerprint ones tend to fail if the persons hands go from dry to being wet [like if lets say someone washes their hands]. Punch in manually can be tricked. When I managed it hand-prints I had to secretly setup exceptions so anyone could technically use the handpunch with them about 10% of the employees...the fingerprint clock was about 5% of employees [by secretly setup I mean not tell the employee that technically anyone could enter their code and use their "finger" to id them]
-
I'm not sure if it's commonplace, but I bet it's going to become more and more common place. Honestly, the amount of times I had to pull security footage to verify if an employee actually was the one who clocked in and out was a lot higher than I would like. Managers covering for employees, or other employees covering for others [by knowing their punch codes]
-
I never said that the underlying structure wasn't trained on other data....but your whole argument is that it spits out averages without any creativity; which is silly if you can feed a 30 second clip of an artist that it has not heard before and can recreate a song of as those the person who you put the clip in is singing. It's the point that you are oversimplifying what is effectively going on in the backend by merely stating that it's spitting out averages of other people's work. The underlying structure of AI is a whole lot more complicated as that. e.g. There are likely parts of the model which has an "understanding" of pitch, others with "understanding" of rhythm, etc...all those together build up a model which is able to generate that [and there are likely feedback parts, ones where it feeds in the generated stuff back into itself etc]. What humans call creativity is essentially just a form of randomness where our brains have put together a pattern and extrapolated that pattern. We are effectively what we have grown up as, we take in copyrighted works and spit out variants of it claiming to be original work. There are very few people out there that I would really call truly creative; a lot of what people do are effectively derivatives of other types of work. For that, a computer which uses a random input of numbers, a prompt, and creates something that cannot be found as a whole in others works would I say be "creative" as it's still an original work, where elements might have signs of the work it was trained on but as a whole it's something new.... The thing to remember is that while it might have been able to "see" previous works, and it's true you can still extract some of the training images out of them, the fact is though humans operate like that as well. Again look up Green Green [which was popular in Japan's kids show when the composer grew up] and tell me that the SMW composer didn't effectively reuse the main part. I've downloaded and compiled the source for stable diffusion and played around with the generation of stuff for at least 3 years now; my current job has me involved in a LLM creation...but sure I have the wrong idea about AI. It is like what I said in this and others, I view AI as almost a predictive model, but the way AI is put together it can for an argument be made that it's consuming images and outputting them in a similarish fashion to a human is [in the sense that I don't think that it should have regulations on the training set data, instead it should have regulations on the output images]. Humans are simply predictive models as well, just very complex ones.
- 20 replies
-
- generative ai
- copyright
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Except that premise doesn't exactly hold true. Human's "learned" skills, are based on a lifetime of learned behavior and patterns [much like AI, except we are more efficient at it]. It's also not that simple of a statement of saying it's an averages. Overall yes, I think AI in general is a predictive engine, BUT that's not to say there isn't a form a creativity going on. You could train an AI on 30 seconds of clips and then tell it to sing a whole different song in the style of the artist you just uploaded 30 seconds of the clip of and it would be able to do it. That would I would say hazards into the creative side of things. Or in the case of uploading an original picture you provided and say paint this in the style of Van Gogh; and it's able to do that. Are you going to try claim that it's spitting out "averages of other people's creative works"? Especially the AI models which also have essentially analyzed brush strokes and essentially try emulating those kinds of brushstrokes when it creates the image. To note on the human stuff. Take the Super Mario World overworld theme...do you think the composer created it by himself with no influence from past works...let's just ignore green green. Music styles are greatly influenced off one and another, where you have a few creators who actually created the "new sound" and everyone else effectively copied them. There are lots of songs out there that overall share a large chunk of underlying undertones...and many songs that end up almost clones of each other.
- 20 replies
-
- generative ai
- copyright
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
The whole thing is a bit complex though; should an artist then who wants to draw in the style of artist XYZ then have to comply by the same kind of thing. After all, there are artists who draw in the style of another painter [without having to purchase their works]. Take for example, Orion an Elvis Presly impersonator. He didn't get the rights to Elvis' likeness/voice, yet he still sung very much like Elvis and did tributes to Elvis...if the AI lets say produced the same output then it would have to in this case. I say for training sets we should treat it like almost a human. The whole thing is a finicky subject, but I think a better option would be Japan's approach...that pretty much anything is free-game and the output is what is part of copyright laws. Also, the whole impractical to train thing, that would push the AI to only large companies who can pay for it...so in other words this would be giving an effective monopoly to ChatGPT, Microsoft and Google [when considering them as one]...well actually what it will do is push all the services to offshore companies, which means now you have no control over it [i.e. Japanese companies or other companies that have less ]. Generative AI is a tool that is really helpful and can speed up productivity; new technology has always brought in the "poor xyz" workers. The thing is everything adapts and people end up finding jobs elsewhere. I mean if we wanted to go about "stolen" data then we have to acknowledge the impact on VHS and cassette tapes which "harmed" so many artists by allowing the copying of their songs.
- 20 replies
-
- generative ai
- copyright
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Well for starters, did you put in your address yet? Given the shipping isnt showing a price I'm assuming not. Although one thing that I always think of is because taxes can be complicated depending where a person lives. I'm assuming it's probably in place because if you place an order and it takes a day or two to process; but in the meantime new tax laws come into effect the end user will end up paying potentially different amounts [as some places might consider the time the item shipped or the time a purchase is made as the official time]. Or maybe to cover themselves in the odd case where someone starts the order at 11:59 and places the order 12:01 local time [and during that time new tariff's/taxes came into effect]. It sounds more like a legal thing if anything to protect themselves
-
While it's good of them to issue a proper apology and recognize what has gone on [i.e. their direct comment lead to racism, and it's not the first time their comments has lead to grief being put on their targeted victim], it's still l pretty bad that it took someone like MKHD threatening to back out to actually provide a proper apology; while you have @LinusTech doing what he does and deflect away with an utter lack of awareness of what actually is being said. dbrand is a company that I will be actively avoiding from now on in how they handled this situation. Being edgy you will cross the line, but when you do and create chaos you better well be ready to back down instead of making a joke of the whole situation. To be clear as well the guy still isn't okay with the message that was portrayed
-
Apple opens the App Store to retro game emulators
wanderingfool2 replied to Obioban's topic in Tech News
From what I am reading of the guidelines from Apple it doesn't really cover emulators in the sense that I think you are thinking of it. Based on how I am reading it, all of the roms will have to be purchased through in-app stores which means any company making it must hold the rights to it. You also get the caveat that you must rate yours the same rating as the highest available game rating [so most will be M, 18+]. Overall this doesn't seem to be allowing what most people think of when talking about emulators...instead this is pretty much first party stuff that want to ram down another "remake" of the same old game. -
The whole dbrand thing is bad, and honestly they should lose sponsorships over this. The initial joke, while I don't think was racist, should have received an apology and immediate explanation about just making fun of anyones name that sounds like other things in English and had no intent to speak of someone's race. The fact they didn't do this and double downed, while again not racist, shows an ignorance of what people who face racism and shows a reluctance to accept that how one reads the post could potentially be construed as racist. The first joke, I wouldn't call it racist but rather them just being ignorant of the connotation. [As a whole I'd say it's more of a massive culturally insensitive and massively disrespectful vs racist...although I view the level of culturally insensitive as being unacceptable as it can promote racism] Poking fun at names isn't inherently racist, English speakers get their names poked fun at a lot as well, but if there is backlash one must learn of negative connotations and issue a formal apology with an explanation that about the intent and not realizing the connotation. The part that makes this really bad though is their whole response, continuing on as a joke...and this is where I think the line is drawn and it's wildly culturally insensitive to the point. Overall though, using someone's name as a characteristic of a person is I think problematic at it's heart. While things like Willy as a name is made fun of, I think it hits different than lets say being named Karen and having someone address you as a "Karen"; as you are now characterizing who they are as a person based on their name. For that I think dbrand, regardless of ethnicity, went overboard. Boiling racism down to solely the color of someone's skin isn't I think right; rather it's about the ethnicity of things. While not racism, Women weren't treated as equals until the 1920's [there are people still alive who existed in a time women couldn't vote]. Scottish and Irish people have been a target of other "white" people, being a natural red-head is still associated with being "soul-less". The whole class system in the European world as well [which eventually got to the point of revolutions/toppling of monarchies]. I'm not trying to trivialize what people of color have endured, and continue to endure though, but the argument that "white people" are somehow more free-game for their name ignores that the majority of the population back even 200 - 300 years ago was somehow oppressed. Overall, I am mad at dbrand, and do think they deserve to have their sponsorships to be paused for a while [as an indication of non-acceptance of the position]
-
German automotive club ADAC warns against retractable door handles
wanderingfool2 replied to Senzelian's topic in Off Topic
Are you being intentionally dense? If you don't check your mirrors when you start driving, it doesn't equate to NEVER checking your mirrors. Also a centralized area that can keep eyes closer to the center of the road will actually encourage more people to do it. AND you still ignore the bit where I also mentioned that a large sum of people ONLY rely on mirrors instead of shoulder checks...which unless you yourself are naive, cameras do help in that safety aspect -
German automotive club ADAC warns against retractable door handles
wanderingfool2 replied to Senzelian's topic in Off Topic
You are being ignorant of the facts. 25% admitted they didn't check their mirrors...that means that 25% of people are likely to drive without realizing that their mirror is out of sorts until they are already on the road. That means for those 25% of people, when the mirror is out of whack then YES the fact that a camera is fixed will solve a problem. It also fixes the issue of people who don't do proper shoulder checks, and yes there are many. Not my fault you can't understand the logic. And nice straw-man argument there. I never said it makes bad drivers good. I'm merely stating that a large sum of people don't necessarily do what they are supposed to do [otherwise we wouldn't be having so many accidents]. I'm stating that adding technology like this reduces the chances of issues. My "non sequitur" is me poking fun at your failed logic that somehow you can ignore bad drivers, by magic hand waving that if done properly mirrors and shoulder checks are good enough...so I merely extend that same reasoning to show the way you are reasoning one can conclude that rear view mirrors are pointless as they offer no safety benefit. It shows how terrible your original argument that cameras don't offer safety benefits is. -
German automotive club ADAC warns against retractable door handles
wanderingfool2 replied to Senzelian's topic in Off Topic
At higher rates of speed tail lights are a lot more difficult to judge distance and the perception of movement. Brake light...that's a whole other story of regulation, there are some vehicles if you have your brake lights on it can be very similar to regular tail lights. Your statement of including "driver errors" as not counting towards camera systems being better rises claim that your same logic there could be used to justify rearview mirrors. The fact is driver errors occur, and camera systems do alleviate that problem; and at night it also amplifies their power by showing better contrast. You have pretty much claimed otherwise that it offers no safety ones, because if you are driving correctly you can drive just as safely with mirrors and shoulder checks...which I'm merely stating that reasoning is bogus because you can drive just as safely without rear view mirrors...you just need to do proper checks. -
German automotive club ADAC warns against retractable door handles
wanderingfool2 replied to Senzelian's topic in Off Topic
I'm stating your argument lacks logic, because YOU are saying mirrors are so great and you don't see any benefit from having cameras. My argument being that you don't actually need the rear view mirror if you are also driving properly and doing shoulder checks and turning your head to look behind while backing up etc. Therefore according to your reasoning we don't need rear view mirrors as it's just something that gets in the way [and blinds drivers if the person behind you has their highbeams on]. https://www.visordown.com/news/general/quarter-drivers-don’t-check-mirrors-when-pulling-away 25% admitted they don't check mirrors and honestly that's of people who are essentially self reporting. From what I've seen, my guess is it's a whole lot higher. If you want to get rear ended -
German automotive club ADAC warns against retractable door handles
wanderingfool2 replied to Senzelian's topic in Off Topic
I've said it before in similar topics to this, the majority of drivers think themselves of being better and safer than they actually are; and all the other drivers out there are just the "ignorant" ones and those who think "I'm are the better driver". But hey, if you think that "mirrors" are so good, we should just eliminate the rear view mirror...since you can drive safely without it [if you drive properly]. Or hey, why not eliminate the front pedestrian bumper attachment because that's adding cost and complexity to the vehicle...and that's only compensating for bad drivers. Do you check the positioning of the mirrors EVERYTIME you enter your vehicle? Wing mirrors being ripped off a vehicle is an actual thing, so unless you know the actual statistics it's going to be pretty tough to say with a blanket statement that it will cost more to repair; as the overall ownership cost might be lower potentially. That's still a lot of visibility. Imagine no other cars around, and having a turn that isn't clearly marked by signage and being encased by trees so the only thing visible is your headlights..and you know a corner is coming because you can see the road slightly bank and trees in front of you. There are some roads that are just downright scary to drive at full speed in the US. Other examples though, BC has the Coquihalla Pass which in winter if you aren't properly equipped with snow tires can be dangerous...lots of accidents happen there [even a TV show which highlights it]. Overall US and Canadian driving infrastructure just hits different...after all BC is home to the worst bus stop in the US...not joking, it was bad enough that they actually decided to expand the category. Kid you not, they have a jersey barrier blocking it [so you have to climb over it] or if you are wheelchair bound you have to keep to the side of a highway [https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/transportation-old/worst-bus-stop-north-america-vancouver-1939799] -
German automotive club ADAC warns against retractable door handles
wanderingfool2 replied to Senzelian's topic in Off Topic
Doesn't matter if it's the driver error or not...the fact is there is a large number of people who will NOT check that their side mirrors have been hit/nudged out of alignment prior to driving. The fact is it happens and happens frequently enough that switching to digital mirrors WILL have an impact in that regards. Again, you are assuming the mirrors are setup correctly. There is also an abnormal amount of people who don't do shoulder checks...otherwise we would end up with a whole lot less accidents [my vehicle was totaled because a person didn't do a shoulder check/mirror check and just entered into my lane from a standstill] In regards to the side repeater cameras, the most expensive would be if you have a wiring issue; but even then what's the probability of the electronics failing vs lets say having your side-mirror break off. Of all people I know with Tesla's, I haven't seen a single one who has had an issue with the cameras not working...yet I do know 2 people who had their mirrors damaged in parking lots [presumably as people tried sliding by]. Also, as I mentioned it adds like 5 - 8% range; so it would greatly depend where you charge and how often you drive. Things such as cameras aren't the ones that are raising the price though, as you said parking sensors [i.e. ultrasonics and radar]. Actually what is a great cost is all the "safety" features which actually have risen the cost of repairs. Things such as ultra-sonic sensors placed on the bumpers and around the vehicle, along with designing it to crumple when it's in an accident to reduce injury are what's eating up a whole lot of the cost. That I would say has little to do with the replacement of conventional parts, but to have the exacting standards placed on by the governments to have things such as forward collision warning. The irony is that those features which also increase repair value also "decrease" the severity of accidents so the insurance pushed for a long time to have those as discounts. As an example, if a current model Tesla gets into a fender bender [they replaced the ultra sonics with just using the cameras]...what needs to be replaced, the bumper assembly...the labor assembly would be relatively cheap...on a car with ultra sonics the labor costs become a whole lot more as now you need to do all the calibration, wiring, etc when you get into a small fender bender. So overall the usage of cameras would lower the overall cost [vs ultra sonics]. While you are talking about "bin parts", the problem isn't necessarily the cost of the part [they range like $2-3 but $5 when sold commercially], but the fact that a mechanic has to go in remove all the sensors to remove the bumper, and then reassemble it and attach the sensors and do the initial calibration. Then you get into the whole concept of crumple zones, where there has been a push to make lower speed collisions result in less injuries. This push has made it so that more components get trashed when you get into an accident. With cameras as well, specifically Tesla, with sentry mode [or even without it] it actually stores accidents on it's camera. The reason I say this is that when you are in an accident it speeds things along a whole lot more when you are able to essentially use video as evidence. It's easy to assess fault...and in the case of Tesla's as well the vehicle uses the cameras to detect evens and apply hard braking/turning to minimize impacts and tighten the seatbelts. While I do get that there is potentially better education, I know plenty of people who went through their education and still are what I consider to be bad drivers. It's overall I think a mentality vs actual skill [with concepts of like road rage/owning the road]. With that said as well, using a casualty rate isn't necessarily correct. Most people quote the deaths per capita, vs deaths per milage. When you factor in that, the number drops a lot. Then you compare it to Canada, which has a very similar type of education as the US [although I do think ours is slightly more stringent, but still not required education] and the number becomes almost within statistical noise. You also have to consider the different types of roads that are encountered, like highway driving accidents will cause a lot more deaths and general cities where you have pedestrians who literally jaywalk on busy 4 lane streets will also cause a lot more issues. Nothing I've seen seems to suggest education is the driving factor in regards to the US numbers, rather I would hazard a guess that the types of roads being driven on and the overall attitude is what's the overall factor. [Seriously, there are sections of the US where you can drive and there aren't any street lamps...it can be a bit scary only having your headlights lighting your way when the speed limit is 100+ km/hour] -
German automotive club ADAC warns against retractable door handles
wanderingfool2 replied to Senzelian's topic in Off Topic
If you actually look around you will notice that an abnormal amount of vehicles have essentially defective side mirrors [either positioned in a way that they don't do their job correct, broken off, or the mirror portion of missing]. Justification though, a large efficiency gain, better vision at night, larger viewport so less blindspots [especially when when it's the repeater cameras], ability to do a safer merge when there is an oddly obstructed view [and the mirrors don't work]. Like I said before, there are trade-offs There are pros and cons of getting rid of wing-mirrors...and some which do actually go along with safety aspects as well [both ways] Well I should have said data along with power. You cannot really design with less without changing up standards. Rodents are attracted to some of the wire insulation, so it's not a huge stretch...it happens and especially if you live in an area with rodents it's more likely to happen [they will chew through almost anything]..and some can get into areas with holes as small as a quarter. It's not always preventable, and it's not even rats needing to be established...especially when you have a warm engine that makes it a good place to hide out when it's cold. Also, the insulation on cables can deteriorate if exposed to some types of chemicals...it happens [at one place I worked at there was a spill that got on the computer cables, and within a few months I was replacing all the cables because they were cracking] -
German automotive club ADAC warns against retractable door handles
wanderingfool2 replied to Senzelian's topic in Off Topic
There are trade offs between the tires though [and not just purely cost]. Things like wearing of them, stability during turns etc. Thinner tires can be better for crunchy snow and straight sections, but in terms of braking performance they actually can be worse in those situations [likely down to tread patterns and the variety that you can do on thicker ones]. The difference between that and a flush door handle [I'm not talking about motorized but the idea of having a flush one] is that it's downsides aren't really overall relevant as in terms of what they are talking about safety I don't think is actually too much of an issue when all things are considered...what would save more lives would be to require people to start carrying the windshield breakers/seatbelt cutters inside all vehicles. Overall as well, there is a trade-off between ugly designs vs efficient ones vs cost. Lucid for example is incredibly aerodynamic, but it comes at the sacrifice of being insanely expensive to build. I'm not saying that the handles weren't also made to be "cool" but you can't deny that it actually does also function as a secondary purpose of lowering the drag. Admittedly that's one thing I like about Cybertruck, and their next vehicle...it's going to be using a 48V architecture which is designed to reduce the number of cables within the vehicle and run communication effectively on ethernet [while keeping a loop of wire so if there is a single break the thing still operates]. Overall I would say adding more electronics isn't necessarily more "bad". Everything has it's trade-offs. e.g. adaptive headlights are good. That's going to greatly be a "it depends". There are so many vehicles I see driving around with missing mirrors [it fell out], missing wing mirrors etc., mirrors not setup correctly to detect blind spots. Cameras can offer a better range of visibility and at night could provide a better contrast than what you could see with your eyes. They do have more potential failing points, but again it's a trade off...lot easier to accidently snap off a side mirror (or drive with the mirror in a position that makes it useless) Lots of vehicles actually have tons of smaller cables carrying the power...and lots of them can sometimes be routed in a way that creates pinch points. Also you add on that rats like the insulation that is used on some vehicle wires and it's a recipe for disaster [or the cables run in an area that they could be exposed to corrosive material if it was spilt and it ends up making the rubber hard so even a bump can cause a short]