this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2025
808 points (97.2% liked)

People Twitter

7992 readers
577 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] qevlarr@lemmy.world 122 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Clippy moment πŸ“ŽπŸ’¬

Unacceptable. It should be illegal to even build the capability to brick someone else's property

[–] turtlesareneat@discuss.online 22 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is a major feature of nearly all cars now. Dealerships can remotely track and disable cars when people fall behind on their payments. That's because so many people fall behind on payments nowadays, they need easy mechanisms for dealing with it. America is cooked.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 13 points 1 week ago

Got to love it. My crappy car doesn't even have Bluetooth, but it does have a CD auto changer. Can't brick my car.

This should indocate to everyone that you cannot rely on any car to work that has this capability.

[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So here's the neat part! They just make it so that you technically are renting the car and so they can brick it up all they want since technically they own the vehicle!

[–] cole@lemdro.id 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

that's not the case here though

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They'll pull the same crap they do with digital content you "buy." Technically you're just buying a license to use the vehicle, not actually buying the vehicle itself.

[–] cole@lemdro.id 3 points 1 week ago

I don't disagree, but in this case that is not true, because that is not what the terms and conditions say.

[–] MeThisGuy@feddit.nl 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

same with the F-35s sold to other countries. and those cost a lot more than even a cybertruck. imagine it being disabled mid-flight. probably entirely possible.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I mean, that's a tiny bit different. That's something you want to be sure will never end up aiding a terrorist attack against you.

Cybertrucks only kill people accidentally.

[–] MeThisGuy@feddit.nl 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

as far as I know (which is not a whole lot) terrorists only fly commercial planes. though I'm sure you can probably find the F-35 Handbook on the War Thunder forums.

[–] NotJohnSmith@feddit.uk 2 points 1 week ago

That's the great thing: the government then get to decide who or what a terrorist is! - including oil rich middle East countries

[–] 0x0@infosec.pub -1 points 1 week ago

Im pretty sure usaf flies f-35

[–] harmsy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

You say that, but your avatar is not Clippy.

[–] MintyFresh@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Oi! Don't bring clippy into this! He was an innocent clip from a better era! More like a qevlarr@lemmy.world moment πŸ‘ŽπŸ–•!!

collapsed inline media

Edit: lol my poor clippy just getting hated on

[–] qevlarr@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I agree. I was referring to Louis Rossmann's Clippy campaign that we should not accept this as consumers but we want technology to help us, like Clippy

Edit: let's not mass downvote for an innocent misunderstanding, even if they worded it a bit strongly. C'mon now

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago

Those monsters can't downvite clippy, he's being held captive against his will.

Honestly, I kinda want to make a clippy bot, hook it into a self hosted LLM and have it roleplay as clippy trapped by Microsoft. It would be a hoot for 30 minutes or so.