"The whole Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc) of somewhat sane governments all DESPISED the Iran deal"
I'd agree with Saudi Arabia and Israel, haven't been paying attention to Kuwait, but I know there are other somewhat sane governments who didn't despise the deal. And most who do 'despise' it (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc) are unrepresentative dictatorships.
"because they knew it would lead to Iran having nuclear weapons, funded in large part by the deal itself..."
Maybe, maybe not, not sure Iran wants nuclear weapons, why would they... and if your answer is right then by the same argument everyone has them or wants them and so will eventually have them. So why this 'diplomatic' side show, why not just skip it.
"because they knew it would lead to Iran having nuclear weapons, funded in large part by the deal itself..."
Then why do you think France, Germany, and England support the deal, or General Mattis for that matter.
"While Timothy normally does excellent articles, his reasoning and logic were severely flawed this time. First off the NHTSA report focused on autosteer, not autobraking. Hence his attributing the reduction in accidents to autobraking is bizarre."
No. Not sure what you find bizarre. He simply mentioned that a large part of the reduction could be due to autobraking :
Tesla shipped with Autopilot hardware starting in October 2014. Tesla activated automatic emergency braking and front collision in March 2015. Tesla then activated Autosteer functionality in October 2015. NHTSA compared crash rates before and after the Auto steer addition in October 2015. So Timothy was right: the March 2015 activation is a confound if you want to use the NHTSA study as Musk tried to do.
"Secondly the Tesla's prior to the FSD update already had autobraking, so the 40% reduction in accidents after enabling FSD can't be attributed to the autobraking."
Again. He didn't say that autobraking had to account for all the discrepency, he simply pointed out that Tesla had autobraking for a little less than half the time covered before the FSD update, and therefore Musk was wrong to use numbers comparing accidents before and after the FSD update without taking into account the large autobreaking confound.
"... politicians chose to provide poisonous dirty Flint Mi. water, because the nibberized neighborhoods they served could not afford to pay for clean water. Most industry had moved to Mexico or China; nobody produced a thing of value to exchange for clean water. What is your issue? Nothing is free... nobody has a right to anything they cannot buy at market price. Poor people = poor water; productive people = yummy clean water."
Nope. It starts with reckless polluting, which results in an artificial scarcity of clean water, which results in profits for the few at the expense of the rest, especially the poor.
Where capital goes, playing a captive labor force against another captive labor force, is secondary.
"The study analyzed antibiotic use in doctors’ offices and emergency departments throughout the United States. CDC researchers found that most of these unnecessary antibiotics are prescribed for respiratory conditions caused by viruses – including common colds, viral sore throats, bronchitis, and sinus and ear infections – which do not respond to antibiotics"
Perhaps they mean they can generate a number they can prove is more random than the best attempts of others.
From the article:
"The researchers call this proximity to fifty-fifty perfection "uniformity." From the more than 100 million bits generated, the researchers found 1,024 certified to be uniform to a trillionth of a percent. "A perfect coin toss would be uniform, and we made 1,024 bits almost perfectly uniform, each extremely close to equally likely to be 0 or 1," Bierhorst explains."
I think you can increase the randomness of a 'random number' generator, but it's not possible to produce a purely random number.
My argument is that it isn't nonsense to support someone financially (for rent, food, etc.) and at the same time support them on other levels.
We can try to make sure we understand each other's arguments and word use better. Reducing the signal to noise ratio in comments can help on that level.
Your 'just free shit' and 'scumbag fraudsters' arguments are certainly worth debating but they're not what I have issue with here.
But that is not what I'm saying. To simplify, I mean that it makes sense to give welfare and other forms of social support at the same time because then one can pay for housing and food while one receives the other support services.
Slashdot Mirror
"The whole Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc) of somewhat sane governments all DESPISED the Iran deal"
I'd agree with Saudi Arabia and Israel, haven't been paying attention to Kuwait, but I know there are other somewhat sane governments who didn't despise the deal. And most who do 'despise' it (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc) are unrepresentative dictatorships.
"because they knew it would lead to Iran having nuclear weapons, funded in large part by the deal itself..."
Maybe, maybe not, not sure Iran wants nuclear weapons, why would they ... and if your answer is right then by the same argument everyone has them or wants them and so will eventually have them. So why this 'diplomatic' side show, why not just skip it.
"because they knew it would lead to Iran having nuclear weapons, funded in large part by the deal itself..."
Then why do you think France, Germany, and England support the deal, or General Mattis for that matter.
"The whole Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc) of somewhat sane governments..."
Couldn't get past that, America's regional allies aren't the only sane governments in the Middle East.
" Iran is a big factor in why the Syria and Yemen situations can't get resolved. "
How do you think Saudi Arabia's role as the major terror backer in the region factors into this.
"And the Obama administration gave away everything"
Trump's man General Mattis disagrees, so does France, Germany, and England.
Misrepresent the truth, yes, to help the region deescalate. Too bad Trump and Netanyahu seem to be trying to inflame the situation.
Yes. It seems they don't have much more than a flatness detector algorithm to point the car to where the 'road' is in rural areas.
"But the safety operator was supposed to figure this all out in less than 3 car lengths."
They had a lot more than 3 car lengths to realize the car wasn't slowing down.
"While Timothy normally does excellent articles, his reasoning and logic were severely flawed this time. First off the NHTSA report focused on autosteer, not autobraking. Hence his attributing the reduction in accidents to autobraking is bizarre."
No. Not sure what you find bizarre. He simply mentioned that a large part of the reduction could be due to autobraking :
Tesla shipped with Autopilot hardware starting in October 2014. Tesla activated automatic emergency braking and front collision in March 2015. Tesla then activated Autosteer functionality in October 2015. NHTSA compared crash rates before and after the Auto steer addition in October 2015. So Timothy was right: the March 2015 activation is a confound if you want to use the NHTSA study as Musk tried to do.
"Secondly the Tesla's prior to the FSD update already had autobraking, so the 40% reduction in accidents after enabling FSD can't be attributed to the autobraking."
Again. He didn't say that autobraking had to account for all the discrepency, he simply pointed out that Tesla had autobraking for a little less than half the time covered before the FSD update, and therefore Musk was wrong to use numbers comparing accidents before and after the FSD update without taking into account the large autobreaking confound.
And why do they say "but failed to spell out the date and the record-setting number of drones" when the link shows otherwise:
https://youtu.be/YQK6_2Brnqk?t...
"They do have a 'hands on steering wheel' sensor."
Which most of the time does absolutely nothing when you're on the highway and it senses your hands aren't on the wheel:
https://www.teslarati.com/what... -what-happens-ignore-tesla-autopilot-warnings/
https://www.reddit.com/r/tesla... -how_often_does_autopilot_warn_you_to_put_your/
My point exactly. Quality of service can vary, it depends on who's giving the service and how much they charge above cost.
Competition can help raise quality and lower prices but it isn't the only way to do it, and ir's maybe not the best.
If that means the best service at cost, then yes.
"No, the acid came from leaves. It was tannic acid,"
Supposing it was, what's your point?
"... politicians chose to provide poisonous dirty Flint Mi. water, because the nibberized neighborhoods they served could not afford to pay for clean water. Most industry had moved to Mexico or China; nobody produced a thing of value to exchange for clean water. What is your issue? Nothing is free ... nobody has a right to anything they cannot buy at market price. Poor people = poor water; productive people = yummy clean water."
Nope. It starts with reckless polluting, which results in an artificial scarcity of clean water, which results in profits for the few at the expense of the rest, especially the poor.
Where capital goes, playing a captive labor force against another captive labor force, is secondary.
God is a girl.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"It is an Immoral act to let a sucker keep his money!"
All depends on who you'd call a sucker and what you mean by 'unkeeping' someone from his money.
"Many in their communities truly believe that academic success is a betrayal to the culture."
It surely can be when academic success leads to the maintenance or reinforcement of disparities.
Addendum
The study also :states that 30% of prescriptions for antibiotics are unnecessary.
"The study analyzed antibiotic use in doctors’ offices and emergency departments throughout the United States. CDC researchers found that most of these unnecessary antibiotics are prescribed for respiratory conditions caused by viruses – including common colds, viral sore throats, bronchitis, and sinus and ear infections – which do not respond to antibiotics"
https://www.cdc.gov/media/rele...
Yes, and it can get a lot more complicated than 3 :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And that's doesn't include government agencies, like the CIA, and private contractors (mercenaries).
Yup.
And a micro payment system could at least partially replace the behavior tracking, and advertising, systems.
"What's a provably random number? "
Perhaps they mean they can generate a number they can prove is more random than the best attempts of others.
From the article:
"The researchers call this proximity to fifty-fifty perfection "uniformity." From the more than 100 million bits generated, the researchers found 1,024 certified to be uniform to a trillionth of a percent. "A perfect coin toss would be uniform, and we made 1,024 bits almost perfectly uniform, each extremely close to equally likely to be 0 or 1," Bierhorst explains."
I think you can increase the randomness of a 'random number' generator, but it's not possible to produce a purely random number.
My argument is that it isn't nonsense to support someone financially (for rent, food, etc.) and at the same time support them on other levels.
We can try to make sure we understand each other's arguments and word use better. Reducing the signal to noise ratio in comments can help on that level.
Your 'just free shit' and 'scumbag fraudsters' arguments are certainly worth debating but they're not what I have issue with here.
I'm not disagreeing but I'm not sure how that's relevant.
Yes, of course.
But that is not what I'm saying. To simplify, I mean that it makes sense to give welfare and other forms of social support at the same time because then one can pay for housing and food while one receives the other support services.