It varies by state law and details. It is unwise and perhaps impolite to impede traffic. But under certain conditions in, say, CA, the pedestrians have the right of way and the cars are required to immediately stop.
Probably correct about the sensors they are using now.
But the clever engineers designing these control systems are also imagining sensors Tesla might use in the future. Noticing that it is possible to improve an algorithm is important, even if it is a theoretical exercise in the medium term.
When the Musk is asked to write the checks to improve the sensor array from X to either Y or even swankier Z, he will want a list of the delta that Z enables. This could be one bullet point on that list. Now this particular item will be so far down the list that Musk will not even read it, but the little people who do the real implementation will consider it when/if the moment arises.
This is the usual pseudo-futuristic mumbo-jumbo from Tesla they sprout out to change the subject when they are about to miss a financial or a production goal.
Your criticisms of Tesla are perhaps correct (I do not know), but they are irrelevant here. Here we are just making fun of Tesla because we think it is fun to mock this patent. It does not really have anything to do with anything important about Tesla. It is a potentially bonding moment for the bros who both like and dislike Tesla. Get with it, dude.
Unless you show me the citation where Tesla is publicly proclaiming this patent as some awe-inspiring reason for higher company valuation, I think that the usual business practice of filing many patents (some of which inevitably turn out to be garbage) is a weak reason to indulge in a chicken little rant.
Your post analyzing why your neighbors got a dog and then poo pooing their reasons is why libertarians are still around. As crazy they may be interfering scolds are far worse.
Your neighbors made it through their longer lives making their own decisions perhaps they just don't need you.
Even worse than an interfering scold are crybaby scolds. Yes, that seems to be the majority of libertarians, now that you mention it. But there will always be crybabies, I suppose, as you succeeded in reminding me.
Did I tell anyone they cannot get a dog of their choice? No.
These are not the overall rates, but the rates of cases that get SCOTUS review. Cases only get a full blown review if 4 Justices vote for review (i.e. the arguments are eventually presented and ruled on). The Justices being pretty clever folk, the typical case that the SCOTUS hears arguments for are ones where both (1) 4 Justices are dissatisfied with the result from an Appellate Court, and (2) those 4 Justices believe they have a good chance of convincing a 5th Justice to go their way.
There are exceptions to the above. Sometimes two Appellate Courts have made perfectly reasonable rulings that happen to be in such conflict with each other that the SCOTUS feels obliged to get involved -- that federal law might be interpreted very differently state to state is a problem the SCOTUS was created to fix. Sometimes a case is sufficiently important that the SCOTUS feels obliged to rule in order to settle the matter with finality (e.g. Gore vs. Bush).
IMNSHO, The Catcher in the Rye and The Great Gatsby are wonderful examples of exquisitely written books that really do not matter. The ennui of the aristocrats is not automatically profound. I suppose someone who is intrigued by the historical development of the novel in America might care, but I do not see why that is more important than other historical topics of study.
Having a dog is a fine idea. Choosing the specific dog based on very emotional reasons was unwise. There are many kinds of dogs that can improve your home security significantly. A "great BIG dog" requires physical exertions by the owners and carries the risk of expensive and demanding medical issues -- not an auspicious choice for an elderly couple who do not have family around to lend them a hand.
On the nose. I finally figured it out when I was old enough for "oldies" for my generation to be a thing. They play the 100 or so most popular of the most popular music from that decade, and still half of it is no better than pleasant and forgettable ear candy. Yes, I like listening to these oldies stations well enough, but the "real deal" when I was young was pretty annoying, because it was the popular 20%, not the curated top 10% of the top 10%.
No wonder crotchety old people think that young folks' music sucks. If they listen to 3 random songs on the radio, the odds that all 3 are worthy of being forgotten as soon as possible is pretty high. Ask for an honest answer about those 3 random songs 30 years later, and most everyone would probably agree.
I think the odds of my mortgage company noticing that I did not pay for home insurance quite high, and the result will be that they will happily add charges to my note for poor insurance coverage at a premium price.. So I am 99% certain of bad consequences for failing to pay for insurance. Insurance looks like a sure thing.;)
To try to address the question in the spirit you seem to be trying to ask it: I tend to hedge towards less insurance, as seems practical.
Yes, there are pockets of not nice areas in London, but that is true in most cities.
People are easily swayed by fears that are completely out of line of the reality. I live in a very low crime area in the SF Bay, with, for example, a homicide rate ~10% of the national average. Yet my elderly NRA-member neighbors felt compelled to get a great BIG dog for protection, and told me they were worried about crime -- something that has saddled them with endless unnecessary hassle. (Mind you, they are really lovely neighbors. But their judgement is quite fuzzy on certain topics.)
Even criminal defense lawyers with trial expertise work plea deals the majority of the time. 90something per cent of federal charges are settled with plea deals.
There is also a weird mindblowing question of whether Bitcoin is inflationary because of itself when it forks. If I owe you 1000 XCoin a year from now and there is a community-accepted fork for good technical reasons six months from now, what do I owe you? Can I spend my coin on the new ledger and pay you from the old ledger? Who decides what XCoin is really an XCoin?
It took me a while to come upon a similar insight.
As I see it: The underlying value of Bitcoin is somewhat tied to the network of people and miners who accept/work this stuff. But even that not fixed in any meaningful sense at all. Miners are incentivized to be highly mercenary, and to service the larger crypto ecosystem by moving to where the biggest bounties can be found. So every cryptocurrency is a direct competitor to every other similar cryptocurrency in a very fundamental way. It does not matter whether Bitcoin specifically is designed to be deflationary or inflationary. The larger ecosystem can experience strong inflation/deflation as a whole, or an individual currency can suffer such within the ecosystem.
You'd think people with an unhealthy obsession with a free market would also want market forces to decide the value of money.
You put your finger on an interesting point. I think it comes down to a strong personal distrust of gov't being sufficiently important, from a certain point of view, that a (overly?) narrow and restricted version of the "free market" is an acceptable price to pay.
Why the anonymous politically connected oligarchs that are gaining control over the various cryptocurrencies are so much more trustworthy than duly elected-by-the-public politicians who happen to owe oligarchs some favors is a question that I do not think has a convincing answer.
The reason Free Silver was a thing back in the 19th century was the economy was growing so fast that debtors were getting crushed by deflation. If the economic production of the US increases by 50% while the supply of gold only increases by 10%, then money-is-gold squeezes economic growth.
There is no particular reason to expect gold to be mined at the "correct" amount in any given decade. Obviously it does not have to precisely match economic growth, but it would be useful if there were any reason to believe these things were tied together on a timescale shorter than centuries.
It is easier to brag to voters "I brought Amazon JOBS to the state ( and will raise the electricity fees on every household in the state by $10 to pay Amazon to come here)!" then "I have been working my ass off and I think I can save every taxpayer 82 cents next year with better run gov't."
You may well be correct that practical automated driving is too far off to throw so much money at today. I do not know, I can only guess.
However, not getting the game and being wrong could cause the Uber company valuation to evaporate to nothing. Rides are a commodity. And if Apple or Google or Walmart or Ford can offer an app that provides a cheaper ride than Uber, Uber is over.
I agree with rsilvergun. In the long term, practical self-driving cars will be the reality. The average consumer will happily get their ride through an app from Uber or Apple or Google or Lyft or Walmart or Ford -- a ride is a commodity to them. If Uber finds itself more than a year or so behind that footrace, it will be completely crushed. Crushed as in 99%-100% of their valuation will evaporate.
At this point, it is conceivable that the race is a 10+ year marathon rather a 5 year jog. If the former, maybe throwing money at the problem today will prove unwise. OTOH, assume it is a long and be wrong, and Uber loses ~$50 billion in valuation.
By the way, I like your vast assumptions in your comment. I suppose you know for a fact how "Trump shoots from the hip" Talked to him lately? You know the man? Also how you took President Trumps action from changing a policy (which is his job) to saying he's "essentially authorizing hostile actions without oversight or planning" Yup, he just changed a policy and now he's going rogue. Sounds like the same policy and political BS we hear everyday.
We have a president who very literally seems confused by what policies his own administration is following. That is not an exaggeration.
Whether he goes "rogue" or not, a president who implements a great policy badly is probably going to be worse for the nation than a president to implements a mediocre policy reasonably well.
The main effect of this Obama policy is to force the various departments to talk to each other before a significant change of policy that involves what is likely to be interpreted as a hostile action. I do not see why any competent president would find that a big burden. Of course, a completely incompetent president might find having to explain his own policy to people who are following trying to follow his directions a big burden -- that is clear.
Slashdot Mirror
Look up the word "interfering" and get back to me.
As for self-righteous, any mirror will serve you.
I like how you think.
If you drive a SAAB or older Jaguar, the wiring is such crap that it does not matter if you try to use the indicator light.
It varies by state law and details. It is unwise and perhaps impolite to impede traffic. But under certain conditions in, say, CA, the pedestrians have the right of way and the cars are required to immediately stop.
Probably correct about the sensors they are using now.
But the clever engineers designing these control systems are also imagining sensors Tesla might use in the future. Noticing that it is possible to improve an algorithm is important, even if it is a theoretical exercise in the medium term.
When the Musk is asked to write the checks to improve the sensor array from X to either Y or even swankier Z, he will want a list of the delta that Z enables. This could be one bullet point on that list. Now this particular item will be so far down the list that Musk will not even read it, but the little people who do the real implementation will consider it when/if the moment arises.
This is the usual pseudo-futuristic mumbo-jumbo from Tesla they sprout out to change the subject when they are about to miss a financial or a production goal.
Your criticisms of Tesla are perhaps correct (I do not know), but they are irrelevant here. Here we are just making fun of Tesla because we think it is fun to mock this patent. It does not really have anything to do with anything important about Tesla. It is a potentially bonding moment for the bros who both like and dislike Tesla. Get with it, dude.
Unless you show me the citation where Tesla is publicly proclaiming this patent as some awe-inspiring reason for higher company valuation, I think that the usual business practice of filing many patents (some of which inevitably turn out to be garbage) is a weak reason to indulge in a chicken little rant.
I never told anyone else what to do. Why you feel the compulsion to perceive victimhood, I will leave to you to figure out.
Your post analyzing why your neighbors got a dog and then poo pooing their reasons is why libertarians are still around. As crazy they may be interfering scolds are far worse.
Your neighbors made it through their longer lives making their own decisions perhaps they just don't need you.
Even worse than an interfering scold are crybaby scolds. Yes, that seems to be the majority of libertarians, now that you mention it. But there will always be crybabies, I suppose, as you succeeded in reminding me.
Did I tell anyone they cannot get a dog of their choice? No.
What's up with bawling, dude?
These are not the overall rates, but the rates of cases that get SCOTUS review. Cases only get a full blown review if 4 Justices vote for review (i.e. the arguments are eventually presented and ruled on). The Justices being pretty clever folk, the typical case that the SCOTUS hears arguments for are ones where both (1) 4 Justices are dissatisfied with the result from an Appellate Court, and (2) those 4 Justices believe they have a good chance of convincing a 5th Justice to go their way.
There are exceptions to the above. Sometimes two Appellate Courts have made perfectly reasonable rulings that happen to be in such conflict with each other that the SCOTUS feels obliged to get involved -- that federal law might be interpreted very differently state to state is a problem the SCOTUS was created to fix. Sometimes a case is sufficiently important that the SCOTUS feels obliged to rule in order to settle the matter with finality (e.g. Gore vs. Bush).
IMNSHO, The Catcher in the Rye and The Great Gatsby are wonderful examples of exquisitely written books that really do not matter. The ennui of the aristocrats is not automatically profound. I suppose someone who is intrigued by the historical development of the novel in America might care, but I do not see why that is more important than other historical topics of study.
Having a dog is a fine idea. Choosing the specific dog based on very emotional reasons was unwise. There are many kinds of dogs that can improve your home security significantly. A "great BIG dog" requires physical exertions by the owners and carries the risk of expensive and demanding medical issues -- not an auspicious choice for an elderly couple who do not have family around to lend them a hand.
On the nose. I finally figured it out when I was old enough for "oldies" for my generation to be a thing. They play the 100 or so most popular of the most popular music from that decade, and still half of it is no better than pleasant and forgettable ear candy. Yes, I like listening to these oldies stations well enough, but the "real deal" when I was young was pretty annoying, because it was the popular 20%, not the curated top 10% of the top 10%.
No wonder crotchety old people think that young folks' music sucks. If they listen to 3 random songs on the radio, the odds that all 3 are worthy of being forgotten as soon as possible is pretty high. Ask for an honest answer about those 3 random songs 30 years later, and most everyone would probably agree.
I think the odds of my mortgage company noticing that I did not pay for home insurance quite high, and the result will be that they will happily add charges to my note for poor insurance coverage at a premium price.. So I am 99% certain of bad consequences for failing to pay for insurance. Insurance looks like a sure thing. ;)
To try to address the question in the spirit you seem to be trying to ask it: I tend to hedge towards less insurance, as seems practical.
Yes, there are pockets of not nice areas in London, but that is true in most cities.
People are easily swayed by fears that are completely out of line of the reality. I live in a very low crime area in the SF Bay, with, for example, a homicide rate ~10% of the national average. Yet my elderly NRA-member neighbors felt compelled to get a great BIG dog for protection, and told me they were worried about crime -- something that has saddled them with endless unnecessary hassle. (Mind you, they are really lovely neighbors. But their judgement is quite fuzzy on certain topics.)
I was thinking Logan's Run.
Even criminal defense lawyers with trial expertise work plea deals the majority of the time. 90something per cent of federal charges are settled with plea deals.
There is also a weird mindblowing question of whether Bitcoin is inflationary because of itself when it forks. If I owe you 1000 XCoin a year from now and there is a community-accepted fork for good technical reasons six months from now, what do I owe you? Can I spend my coin on the new ledger and pay you from the old ledger? Who decides what XCoin is really an XCoin?
It took me a while to come upon a similar insight.
As I see it: The underlying value of Bitcoin is somewhat tied to the network of people and miners who accept/work this stuff. But even that not fixed in any meaningful sense at all. Miners are incentivized to be highly mercenary, and to service the larger crypto ecosystem by moving to where the biggest bounties can be found. So every cryptocurrency is a direct competitor to every other similar cryptocurrency in a very fundamental way. It does not matter whether Bitcoin specifically is designed to be deflationary or inflationary. The larger ecosystem can experience strong inflation/deflation as a whole, or an individual currency can suffer such within the ecosystem.
You'd think people with an unhealthy obsession with a free market would also want market forces to decide the value of money.
You put your finger on an interesting point. I think it comes down to a strong personal distrust of gov't being sufficiently important, from a certain point of view, that a (overly?) narrow and restricted version of the "free market" is an acceptable price to pay.
Why the anonymous politically connected oligarchs that are gaining control over the various cryptocurrencies are so much more trustworthy than duly elected-by-the-public politicians who happen to owe oligarchs some favors is a question that I do not think has a convincing answer.
The reason Free Silver was a thing back in the 19th century was the economy was growing so fast that debtors were getting crushed by deflation. If the economic production of the US increases by 50% while the supply of gold only increases by 10%, then money-is-gold squeezes economic growth.
There is no particular reason to expect gold to be mined at the "correct" amount in any given decade. Obviously it does not have to precisely match economic growth, but it would be useful if there were any reason to believe these things were tied together on a timescale shorter than centuries.
It is easier to brag to voters "I brought Amazon JOBS to the state ( and will raise the electricity fees on every household in the state by $10 to pay Amazon to come here)!" then "I have been working my ass off and I think I can save every taxpayer 82 cents next year with better run gov't."
Good point.
You may well be correct that practical automated driving is too far off to throw so much money at today. I do not know, I can only guess.
However, not getting the game and being wrong could cause the Uber company valuation to evaporate to nothing. Rides are a commodity. And if Apple or Google or Walmart or Ford can offer an app that provides a cheaper ride than Uber, Uber is over.
I agree with rsilvergun. In the long term, practical self-driving cars will be the reality. The average consumer will happily get their ride through an app from Uber or Apple or Google or Lyft or Walmart or Ford -- a ride is a commodity to them. If Uber finds itself more than a year or so behind that footrace, it will be completely crushed. Crushed as in 99%-100% of their valuation will evaporate.
At this point, it is conceivable that the race is a 10+ year marathon rather a 5 year jog. If the former, maybe throwing money at the problem today will prove unwise. OTOH, assume it is a long and be wrong, and Uber loses ~$50 billion in valuation.
By the way, I like your vast assumptions in your comment. I suppose you know for a fact how "Trump shoots from the hip" Talked to him lately? You know the man? Also how you took President Trumps action from changing a policy (which is his job) to saying he's "essentially authorizing hostile actions without oversight or planning" Yup, he just changed a policy and now he's going rogue. Sounds like the same policy and political BS we hear everyday.
We have a president who very literally seems confused by what policies his own administration is following. That is not an exaggeration.
Whether he goes "rogue" or not, a president who implements a great policy badly is probably going to be worse for the nation than a president to implements a mediocre policy reasonably well.
The main effect of this Obama policy is to force the various departments to talk to each other before a significant change of policy that involves what is likely to be interpreted as a hostile action. I do not see why any competent president would find that a big burden. Of course, a completely incompetent president might find having to explain his own policy to people who are following trying to follow his directions a big burden -- that is clear.