They are classifying ANYTHING as broken. They classify natural deserts as broken. They classify natural mountains as broken They classify ALL human farming (no matter how productive for how long) as broken.
As far as I can tell, its pretty much only natural untouched forests and jungle they consider to be not broken.
Interesting worldview, that.. Someone got a bit caught up in trying to rationalise a stupid-high number.
And quietly after the interview Mr Moir though to himself how nice it will be to enjoy his free unlimited Uber account.
Really, the BS he has been coming up with shows that he either thinks of the victim has some kind of human trash who has no worth, or he has a vested interested in protecting Uber - this rhetoric seems unrelated to the facts starting to come out.
not to mention the fact that LIDAR doesnt care about 'shadows' (and there were no shadows, she was on an open straight bit of road - if the Uber was traveling so that it could not in the road it was lit, then it IS at fault).
So, what you are telling us is your sister was following a truck too close and looked away without leaving herself enough space. Got it. She should learn how to drive better.
Absolutely correct, however it goes further than that. If someone is likely to enter the road in front of you, you also have a legal obligation to allow for that, probably by slowing or making space. You MUST be able to stop the the clear road ahead of you, and you MUST allow for foreseeable changes in the road conditions (including someone entering it).
If someone is walking towards the side of the road looking like they will enter it just as you get there, not slowing down IS your fault, and you had better be ready to prove a reason why you didnt if you hit them (even if they were being stupid, perhaps reading their 'device', etc).
This is all pretty damn well established, and its pretty worrying that some people dont understand why.
No, completely wrong, certainly in most of the world. There is almost always a requirement to be in control of your vehicle and be able to stop in the clear road ahead of you. This is why you are almost always legally at fault if you rear-end the vehicle in front of you. This is also why you are almost always legally at fault if you hit a pedestrian.
Your only defense is that they could not be seen in time for you to react. For that you generally have to show that they appeared on the road in a way that made that impossible. Examples are stepping out from behind a solid object (like a big SUV), running in to the road unexpectedly, etc. YOU will need to provide evidence of that, not them. You must show that the default rule does not apply here.
Of course, he seems to have forgotten that just perhaps what these things are doing, as most of them are now traffic sensitive, is maximizing the throughput of the ENTIRE roading system.
What he actually seems to have his proverbial panties in a twist about is 'we are not following the rules the traffic planners pre-decided for us, oh no!' I am imaging that he thinks of himself as one of those planners, and how DARE us unwashed heathens not just follow the routes our betters decide for us.
The fact is that if the secondary/tertiary roads get blocked up due to google maps routing, then google maps will KEEP PEOPLE AWAY FROM THEM. THATS HOW IT WORKS!
It is a bit less convenient for people who live in those areas? Sure. In which case lean on your town planners to avoid narrowing main roads for more bus/special/cycleway lanes, and make the primary roads larger.. because thats what services the majority, rather than pandering to a minority.
Give him another 20 years of life experience and just perhaps he will learn than central planning is pretty much ALWAYS a route to failure. Mostly because bureaucracy rewards bureaucracy, not efficiency.
I wonder what people would think if Americas best and brightest security researchers/hackers were going to China to be involved in paid bug-hunts. I am suspecting the reaction would border on claiming treason, there would certainly be calls for them to be cut out of any real security work, and their personal lives would probably be destroyed also...
but no, apparently EVERYONE loses if China doesnt send their best and brightest over to help out American corps..
A few of the American corps who tried to transplant euro style small diesels got caught out, but they never sold many of them.
The thing to remember is the bulk of American Diesels are in 'trucks' (of the pickup type), and they just gave themselves a nicve fat emissions standards exemption on all of them. Why do you think America kept bringing in tighter and tighter rules (which mostly only applied to the euro imports)?
Complain about Euro diesels after you start emissions testing your 6.5l supercharged petrol pickups!
These devices are in no way failed, they are having their operational status revoked. By Apple. For their own advantage.
BTW, Stop making examples up. I regularly source Toshiba parts older than 3 years - and usually no problems with parts older than 10 years. You would also have the options of going gray-market, or finding a second hard part.
Want to try that here? How do you think Apple would react to a request to release the required encryption keys to allow 3rd party support of this device to continue?
No, there is a damn good reason Apple is fighting tooth and nail to block right-to-repair, Loves the DMCA, etc. Once they have people on the hook, they expect them to keep paying, or suffer the consequences. It is device based Catholicism.
And no, your examples of software cost do NOT apply. The only reason they need to do additional work is because they wish to add new features to OTHER, NEWER products - there is no direct costing being created by the existing devices - so it is in no way similar to the cost of keeping a physical inventory of parts.
How about appropriately blaming a society where: a) There are guns everywhere. b) There is very little social responsibility (its always someone ELSES fault). c) Being the Alpha is what matters, be it through money, force, or fame. d) Not 'fitting in' is punished by being socially ostracised, and told there is something wrong with you. e) A Police force that will thunder through the door guns blazing in response to a phone call. f) Living in a constant media and social deluge reinforcing all of the above.
Disenfrancise enough people and this is the outcome. Congratulations America, I guess this is 'The Dream'.
But dont worry, just arm more people, because escalation works.
(btw, no, video games wont work - many countries, especially Asian boys, LOVE violent video games, and have very very very very low rates of these crimes)
Because you are not talking about ride HAILING systems! Has English comprehension really become this bad? This is a Scheduling system, not a Hailing system!
I understand that the headline monkeys think that by making it sound like some kind of AI UBER competitor people may care a little more.... But this has almost NOTHING to do with Ride Hailing!
Your father and/or your grandfather (depending on your age) had sex with your mother/grandmother in a society which almost by definition gave him a position of power to demand she obey him in such matters. Modern views would consider that non-consensual, and by definition rape. As you are the outcome of that crime (extend back further in history if you want to make it stronger) you are by definition profiting and prospering from what we now consider crimes.
Or, alternatively, you could consider that perhaps, even though we may not currently agree with actions taken historically, as we had no influence over them, and as they were not crimes at the time, we do not in fact have a responsibility because of them.
I know a few (very few) men who have tried to study Nursing or Preschool Education. Almost all of them dropped out, and almost all of them were ADVISED to drop out.
Care to guess why? No? There is no issue with gender equality in those areas?
I think we just assumed it was caused by the same effect that causes you to ignore many many decades of peer reviewed published well accepted science, and instead claim, well, I'm not sure what you claim, since you just seem to have a need to deny well established science in this case.
The differences are not subtle, difficult to measure, and extend across many areas including physical, biological, genetic, emotional, intellectual.. Pretty much anywhere you look there are well established statistical differences. And before you drag out the long rotten straw man of claiming I am saying females are always inferior, note that that is far from true, both physical genders (and no doubt the rare overlap cases) have their own strengths and weaknesses.
Many of the authors involved have publicly come out stating that his interpretation of their research is technically correct. A few (notably, not those leading in their field) had said that they disagree with his memo itself, however none have claimed that the science is actually incorrect.
After all, this is not exactly bleeding edge science - it is well established fact that has been deeply studied and well proven. In fact there are many differences that ARE embraced by the very people who attacked this memo - they just like to be selective, and claim that none of the differences that dont suit them exist.....
1. That should not matter, the science was published, and the conclusions he took from it are a valid conclusion, so to the best of his ability he was stating fact, normally THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH. The fact that some of the publishers (not all not, some actually said his interpretation was correct) since backpedaled on their own research is hardly Damores fault. You are not required to be CORRECT in all interpretations, just to have not presented things you know to be false - this is LONG established - otherwise everyone would be required to be THE leading expert in everything they said - which is obviously impossible.
2 - Why not? Because you want to change what he was saying? He made it clear he was speaking of averages and trends, not absolutes - and then is getting punished as though he stated absolutes.
3 - He (amongst others) was asked by his employer to write their thoughts on the subject and publish them to a specific internal location - he did exactly as requested by his employer. He is no was distributed it further than that - where is the punishment for those who did? Why is he being punished for following instructions of his employer?
4 - Why is that his responsibility? Google asked people for their thoughts, he did exactly as asked. The fact that they did not like the response was not his fault - perhaps they should have had a process in place to vet submissions if they didnt want such opinions.
5 - Why not? They are very well known science, and the fact that they may be unpopular amongst some at present does not change than, neither does a backpedal on published research by some of the people involved (but, importantly, not all, and not the leaders in the field) does not change that. He published information that was at that time publicly published in respectable scientific journals - why should he be punished for repeating such content?
The situation we are creating here is one where someone can get punished for repeating publicly accepted (by peer reviewed journal publishing) information in a way their employer asked them to, because the employer felt embarrassed about it after the fact. Think about the ramifications of that for a while.
Also note that NO action was taken against him at the time he followed the instructions of Google - in fact it was only taken after a 3rd party made this information public. THAT, above all else, should indicate that Googles actions are blindingly wrong.
Lolz. Are you going for some kind of stupid award today? you are doing well!
You pretty much covered it with your 'pancake mix', implying you dont know how to make such a trivial mixture yourself. Congratulations. I you cannot cook, eat, and clean up such a 'meal' (and I use those quotes intentionally, it sounds horrible...) in under an hour, then I am afraid you have nothign much to contribute here.
And you actually think pre-prepared meals are cheaper than cooking food. There is not much more to say here.
I assume you just buy new clothes every few days, because washing and drying your existing ones is SO much bother, or does your mum still do that for you?
So, you are saying that at the same time there is TONS of evidence that these foods are bad for you (with the associated implication that everyone should know that), while simultaneously claiming that no one should be able to question the "lifestyle choices" of people eating those foods... I can only assume then that you think these people are making an informed decision to eat food they know is bad for them, and therefore you are implying they are stupid. Thats rather judgemental of you, dont you think?
Then of course there is your use of "rely" as if these people are incapable of enough life control to eat other food..
Your complete logic-fail of trying to link something you claim is common knowledge to something that you claim was behind actively hidden is rather special however.
I think that perhaps you are the one who doesnt realise what message you are conveying, or perhaps you do realise that the message is 'rsilvergun is an idiot'?
You really are a pathetic appologist, sorry to have to say.
No, you are completely WRONG. A flat frequency response in NO way indicates "more accurate", it just shows it has a flat frequency response. What is its group delay like? How about relative phase? Frequency dependent dispersion? Ah, but IT HAS FLAT FREQUENCY RESPONSE. So what. As people have mentioned, that is almost meaningless.
Lets see some impulse waterfall plots - compare THOSE to real audiophile speakers - you will learn something.
This is the lowest form of cheesy marketing - something Apple have specialised in for a long time - making technical sounding but completely indefensible claims, then just sticking their fingers in their ears, singing 'la la la' loudly, and ignoring reality. What we have here is someone who is a true believer trying to find a 'technical' sounding reason for why the product is revolutionary - and it simply is not.
Why? IT IS TRIVIAL TO MAKE ANY DSP BASED SPEAKER HAVE A FLAT FREQUENCY RESPONSE. You just equalise the fuck out of it - which has terrible and very audible consequences, but you get flat frequency response.....
Yes, quite. What we need next is some kind of machine that you can use to cur metal into shapes, perhaps using some kind of spinning tool and an x/y/z movable bed..
Oh way, its called a milling machine, and combined with a tig welder, you can replicate a LOT of things without the problems associated with the random-and-unpredictable finish and strength of 3d metal printing.
Metal printing will make 'easy' parts easy (remember, you have to come up with an accurate 3d model), and hard parts will still be hard.
The parts that are real hard just dont 3d print anyway - gears for example are HORRIFIC when 3d printed due to a number of problems to do with finish strength and texture. Hollow parts can the big areas where 3d printing helps, but those are pretty rare on most cars (unless you think you will be printing a new block or piston..)
Slashdot Mirror
Its worse than that.
They are classifying ANYTHING as broken.
They classify natural deserts as broken.
They classify natural mountains as broken
They classify ALL human farming (no matter how productive for how long) as broken.
As far as I can tell, its pretty much only natural untouched forests and jungle they consider to be not broken.
Interesting worldview, that..
Someone got a bit caught up in trying to rationalise a stupid-high number.
Shhhh, don't disturb the millennial, they are busy disrupting their way to success.
At least until daddy stops paying the bills.
And quietly after the interview Mr Moir though to himself how nice it will be to enjoy his free unlimited Uber account.
Really, the BS he has been coming up with shows that he either thinks of the victim has some kind of human trash who has no worth, or he has a vested interested in protecting Uber - this rhetoric seems unrelated to the facts starting to come out.
not to mention the fact that LIDAR doesnt care about 'shadows' (and there were no shadows, she was on an open straight bit of road - if the Uber was traveling so that it could not in the road it was lit, then it IS at fault).
So, what you are telling us is your sister was following a truck too close and looked away without leaving herself enough space.
Got it. She should learn how to drive better.
Absolutely correct, however it goes further than that.
If someone is likely to enter the road in front of you, you also have a legal obligation to allow for that, probably by slowing or making space.
You MUST be able to stop the the clear road ahead of you, and you MUST allow for foreseeable changes in the road conditions (including someone entering it).
If someone is walking towards the side of the road looking like they will enter it just as you get there, not slowing down IS your fault, and you had better be ready to prove a reason why you didnt if you hit them (even if they were being stupid, perhaps reading their 'device', etc).
This is all pretty damn well established, and its pretty worrying that some people dont understand why.
No, completely wrong, certainly in most of the world.
There is almost always a requirement to be in control of your vehicle and be able to stop in the clear road ahead of you.
This is why you are almost always legally at fault if you rear-end the vehicle in front of you.
This is also why you are almost always legally at fault if you hit a pedestrian.
Your only defense is that they could not be seen in time for you to react.
For that you generally have to show that they appeared on the road in a way that made that impossible.
Examples are stepping out from behind a solid object (like a big SUV), running in to the road unexpectedly, etc.
YOU will need to provide evidence of that, not them. You must show that the default rule does not apply here.
Yes, the boy is a genius (in his own mind).
Of course, he seems to have forgotten that just perhaps what these things are doing, as most of them are now traffic sensitive, is maximizing the throughput of the ENTIRE roading system.
What he actually seems to have his proverbial panties in a twist about is 'we are not following the rules the traffic planners pre-decided for us, oh no!'
I am imaging that he thinks of himself as one of those planners, and how DARE us unwashed heathens not just follow the routes our betters decide for us.
The fact is that if the secondary/tertiary roads get blocked up due to google maps routing, then google maps will KEEP PEOPLE AWAY FROM THEM. THATS HOW IT WORKS!
It is a bit less convenient for people who live in those areas? Sure. In which case lean on your town planners to avoid narrowing main roads for more bus/special/cycleway lanes, and make the primary roads larger.. because thats what services the majority, rather than pandering to a minority.
Give him another 20 years of life experience and just perhaps he will learn than central planning is pretty much ALWAYS a route to failure.
Mostly because bureaucracy rewards bureaucracy, not efficiency.
Everyone loses, really?
I wonder what people would think if Americas best and brightest security researchers/hackers were going to China to be involved in paid bug-hunts.
I am suspecting the reaction would border on claiming treason, there would certainly be calls for them to be cut out of any real security work, and their personal lives would probably be destroyed also...
but no, apparently EVERYONE loses if China doesnt send their best and brightest over to help out American corps..
Grow up.
Or replace the replaceable batteries, like you are SUPPOSED TO DO.
Sigh.
Ah, yes. In the same way skin colour is a protected class?
In that if its white or (arguably) yellow you are protected against additional rights?
Saying Gender is a protected class is BS Newspeak. being NOT MALE is a protected class.
BMW?
A few of the American corps who tried to transplant euro style small diesels got caught out, but they never sold many of them.
The thing to remember is the bulk of American Diesels are in 'trucks' (of the pickup type), and they just gave themselves a nicve fat emissions standards exemption on all of them.
Why do you think America kept bringing in tighter and tighter rules (which mostly only applied to the euro imports)?
Complain about Euro diesels after you start emissions testing your 6.5l supercharged petrol pickups!
Dont try and confuse this with repair.
These devices are in no way failed, they are having their operational status revoked. By Apple. For their own advantage.
BTW, Stop making examples up. I regularly source Toshiba parts older than 3 years - and usually no problems with parts older than 10 years.
You would also have the options of going gray-market, or finding a second hard part.
Want to try that here?
How do you think Apple would react to a request to release the required encryption keys to allow 3rd party support of this device to continue?
No, there is a damn good reason Apple is fighting tooth and nail to block right-to-repair, Loves the DMCA, etc.
Once they have people on the hook, they expect them to keep paying, or suffer the consequences. It is device based Catholicism.
And no, your examples of software cost do NOT apply. The only reason they need to do additional work is because they wish to add new features
to OTHER, NEWER products - there is no direct costing being created by the existing devices - so it is in no way similar to the cost of keeping
a physical inventory of parts.
How about appropriately blaming a society where:
a) There are guns everywhere.
b) There is very little social responsibility (its always someone ELSES fault).
c) Being the Alpha is what matters, be it through money, force, or fame.
d) Not 'fitting in' is punished by being socially ostracised, and told there is something wrong with you.
e) A Police force that will thunder through the door guns blazing in response to a phone call.
f) Living in a constant media and social deluge reinforcing all of the above.
Disenfrancise enough people and this is the outcome. Congratulations America, I guess this is 'The Dream'.
But dont worry, just arm more people, because escalation works.
(btw, no, video games wont work - many countries, especially Asian boys, LOVE violent video games, and have very very very very low rates of these crimes)
No, that is not the point...
Because you are not talking about ride HAILING systems!
Has English comprehension really become this bad? This is a Scheduling system, not a Hailing system!
I understand that the headline monkeys think that by making it sound like some kind of AI UBER competitor people may care a little more....
But this has almost NOTHING to do with Ride Hailing!
Sounds like a driver scheduling application, of which there are many, of varying quality.
WTF does it have to do with hailing? Just another example of quality editorial work?
Your father and/or your grandfather (depending on your age) had sex with your mother/grandmother in a society which almost by definition gave him a position of power to demand she obey him in such matters. Modern views would consider that non-consensual, and by definition rape.
As you are the outcome of that crime (extend back further in history if you want to make it stronger) you are by definition profiting and prospering from what we now consider crimes.
Or, alternatively, you could consider that perhaps, even though we may not currently agree with actions taken historically, as we had no influence over them, and as they were not crimes at the time, we do not in fact have a responsibility because of them.
See how it works?
I know a few (very few) men who have tried to study Nursing or Preschool Education.
Almost all of them dropped out, and almost all of them were ADVISED to drop out.
Care to guess why? No? There is no issue with gender equality in those areas?
Hmm......
I think we just assumed it was caused by the same effect that causes you to ignore many many decades of peer reviewed published well accepted science, and instead claim, well, I'm not sure what you claim, since you just seem to have a need to deny well established science in this case.
The differences are not subtle, difficult to measure, and extend across many areas including physical, biological, genetic, emotional, intellectual.. Pretty much anywhere you look there are well established statistical differences.
And before you drag out the long rotten straw man of claiming I am saying females are always inferior, note that that is far from true, both physical genders (and no doubt the rare overlap cases) have their own strengths and weaknesses.
Stop blatantly lying AmiMoJo.
Many of the authors involved have publicly come out stating that his interpretation of their research is technically correct.
A few (notably, not those leading in their field) had said that they disagree with his memo itself, however none have claimed that the science is actually incorrect.
After all, this is not exactly bleeding edge science - it is well established fact that has been deeply studied and well proven.
In fact there are many differences that ARE embraced by the very people who attacked this memo - they just like to be selective, and claim
that none of the differences that dont suit them exist.....
1. That should not matter, the science was published, and the conclusions he took from it are a valid conclusion, so to the best of his ability he was stating fact, normally THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH. The fact that some of the publishers (not all not, some actually said his interpretation was correct) since backpedaled on their own research is hardly Damores fault. You are not required to be CORRECT in all interpretations, just to have not presented things you know to be false - this is LONG established - otherwise everyone would be required to be THE leading expert in everything they said - which is obviously impossible.
2 - Why not? Because you want to change what he was saying? He made it clear he was speaking of averages and trends, not absolutes - and then is getting punished as though he stated absolutes.
3 - He (amongst others) was asked by his employer to write their thoughts on the subject and publish them to a specific internal location - he did exactly as requested by his employer. He is no was distributed it further than that - where is the punishment for those who did? Why is he being punished for following instructions of his employer?
4 - Why is that his responsibility? Google asked people for their thoughts, he did exactly as asked. The fact that they did not like the response was not his fault - perhaps they should have had a process in place to vet submissions if they didnt want such opinions.
5 - Why not? They are very well known science, and the fact that they may be unpopular amongst some at present does not change than, neither does a backpedal on published research by some of the people involved (but, importantly, not all, and not the leaders in the field) does not change that. He published information that was at that time publicly published in respectable scientific journals - why should he be punished for repeating such content?
The situation we are creating here is one where someone can get punished for repeating publicly accepted (by peer reviewed journal publishing) information in a way their employer asked them to, because the employer felt embarrassed about it after the fact. Think about the ramifications of that for a while.
Also note that NO action was taken against him at the time he followed the instructions of Google - in fact it was only taken after a 3rd party made this information public. THAT, above all else, should indicate that Googles actions are blindingly wrong.
Lolz. Are you going for some kind of stupid award today? you are doing well!
You pretty much covered it with your 'pancake mix', implying you dont know how to make such a trivial mixture yourself. Congratulations.
I you cannot cook, eat, and clean up such a 'meal' (and I use those quotes intentionally, it sounds horrible...) in under an hour, then I am afraid you have nothign much to contribute here.
And you actually think pre-prepared meals are cheaper than cooking food. There is not much more to say here.
I assume you just buy new clothes every few days, because washing and drying your existing ones is SO much bother, or does your mum still do that for you?
So, you are saying that at the same time there is TONS of evidence that these foods are bad for you (with the associated implication that everyone should know that), while simultaneously claiming that no one should be able to question the "lifestyle choices" of people eating those foods...
I can only assume then that you think these people are making an informed decision to eat food they know is bad for them, and therefore you are implying they are stupid.
Thats rather judgemental of you, dont you think?
Then of course there is your use of "rely" as if these people are incapable of enough life control to eat other food..
Your complete logic-fail of trying to link something you claim is common knowledge to something that you claim was behind actively hidden is rather special however.
I think that perhaps you are the one who doesnt realise what message you are conveying, or perhaps you do realise that the message is 'rsilvergun is an idiot'?
You really are a pathetic appologist, sorry to have to say.
No, you are completely WRONG.
A flat frequency response in NO way indicates "more accurate", it just shows it has a flat frequency response.
What is its group delay like?
How about relative phase?
Frequency dependent dispersion?
Ah, but IT HAS FLAT FREQUENCY RESPONSE. So what. As people have mentioned, that is almost meaningless.
Lets see some impulse waterfall plots - compare THOSE to real audiophile speakers - you will learn something.
This is the lowest form of cheesy marketing - something Apple have specialised in for a long time - making technical sounding but completely indefensible claims, then just sticking their fingers in their ears, singing 'la la la' loudly, and ignoring reality.
What we have here is someone who is a true believer trying to find a 'technical' sounding reason for why the product is revolutionary - and it simply is not.
Why?
IT IS TRIVIAL TO MAKE ANY DSP BASED SPEAKER HAVE A FLAT FREQUENCY RESPONSE.
You just equalise the fuck out of it - which has terrible and very audible consequences, but you get flat frequency response.....
Yes, quite.
What we need next is some kind of machine that you can use to cur metal into shapes, perhaps using some kind of spinning tool and an x/y/z movable bed..
Oh way, its called a milling machine, and combined with a tig welder, you can replicate a LOT of things without the problems associated with the random-and-unpredictable finish and strength of 3d metal printing.
Metal printing will make 'easy' parts easy (remember, you have to come up with an accurate 3d model), and hard parts will still be hard.
The parts that are real hard just dont 3d print anyway - gears for example are HORRIFIC when 3d printed due to a number of problems to do with finish strength and texture. Hollow parts can the big areas where 3d printing helps, but those are pretty rare on most cars (unless you think you will be printing a new block or piston..)