Also, miles driven means nothing if nothing unexpected is happening during most of those miles.
This depends both on what happens and on what range of events are expected/handled by the system. Most of Waymo's driving in California is on busy surface streets where lots of random things happen.
I've noticed that after loading up a significant amount of nitrogen from repeated deep SCUBA dives, my joints become considerably more "crackly". It takes less motion to pop them, and they can be popped again in a shorter amount of time than normal.
Shorter time? Hmm. The joints in my right hand won't crack for a long time after I've cracked them once, but the joints in my left hand can be cracked immediately after cracking them, and I've done this at least thirty times in a row while reading this discussion thread. Perhaps there are multiple causes of cracking joints, some of which don't involve bubbles?
I suppose that's possible. It's the only explanation I've ever heard, other than tendon snapping, but that's usually only on large joints with big tendons going past them.
Nonsense. Oh, sure they might have to call out bits and pieces, perhaps one or two in every article even. But the media does a better job than you're giving it credit for.
Also false. Americans were richer in the 70s. Wealth isn't about big TVs, it's about stability Yes, I can buy a nice TV for $200. But a house is $300,000+ unless I want to live in a slum and drink lead. Health care and education costs have massively outpaced inflation. Food has shot up too in the last 10 years thanks to deregulating the commodities market. Real Buying power is down. Way down.
I made it up a hill in a 1991 Nissan hardbody light pickup with nothing in the back. Generally, loss of traction means slow going; and errant steering is oversteer, easily fixed with countersteering.
I'm rarely worried about getting stuck in a passenger car. If I'm going somewhere that's likely to be an issue, I take the pickup and put it in 4WD. My concern about passenger cars on snow and ice is control, and insufficiently-weighted wheels lose control easily.
When you accelerate, all the load goes onto the back wheels
Only if you're accelerating really hard, which you can't do on slippery roads anyway.
The normal weirdness is understeer, and the response is to turn harder and hope it works; it might not work.
No, if you're understeering, the solution is to let off the gas and slow down.
AWD solves all of this anyway.
True, but at a cost. In the case of a Tesla Model S, the cost difference between a new dual-motor car and a used single-motor car is about as much as the purchase price of a typical family sedan. And I can't find any used dual-motor Model S's for sale.
In any case, with a Model S the weight is almost evenly distributed (48% front, 52% rear) and by all reports the single-motor, RWD version does great on snow... though dual-motor AWD is even better.
I used to drive a RWD pickup truck. When I got FWD, I hated it in the snow. I still hate FWD.:|
All due respect, you're nuts:-)
I drive a FWD car and a RWD pickup. The pickup does okay in the snow, but only because I keep a thousand pounds of rock salt in the bed during the winter. Without that, the rear end is all sorts of squirrelly. You do have to understand the effect of FWD on traction while turning. You can't both turn and accelerate very well, because you are using the same patches of tire to do both. Only so much friction to go around... and on slippery roads, not much of that. But once you understand that, FWD is unquestionably better than RWD on slippery surfaces -- at least for ICEVs which have a big, heavy engine sitting on the front wheels.
Miss-attribution. The pressure variations both cause the bubble and cause them to collapse suddenly. It's called cavitation. We don't normally have bubbles in our joints and we don't build up any over time either.
What does build up in the sinovial fluid is the nitrogen gas which is pulled out of solution (forming bubbles) and then released. After the gas is released, you have to wait a while for gas to migrate from surrounding tissues (by osmosis) before you can crack again.
I've noticed that after loading up a significant amount of nitrogen from repeated deep SCUBA dives, my joints become considerably more "crackly". It takes less motion to pop them, and they can be popped again in a shorter amount of time than normal. Some people tell me they get the same effect just by taking a plane ride that starts at sea level, so the 8000-foot cabin pressure creates enough ppN2 differential to increase cracking. Doesn't do that for me, though.
I'm considering buying a used Model S, but I'm not seeing many D versions available, and I'm concerned about how a RWD vehicle fares on snowy roads. I realize it will be better than an ICEV RWD, since their weight distribution is forward while the Model S is more balanced front to back.
"FB is a pack of socialist liberal commies and so anything they mark as false must be true."
No - FB is a pack of capitalist stooges and running dogs. But yes, when FB declares a story to be fake, that's a strong indicator the story may be true.
So, that means Conservative news will be eliminated & Liberal lies will be emphasized. Got it!
This is an excellent example of why it's not going to work. Not in the present political climate of the US, anyway.
Suppose for the sake of argument, that Facebook's fact checking were like nothing ever seen in history. Relentless pursuit of absolute, unbiased truth. We'd still see comments like the above... and worse, we'd see people who begin watching for the Facebook "not a fact" ruling in order to proudly believe and promote those articles more.
The problem is that for too many people, the tribal conflict has overtaken truth in importance, because absurd beliefs are actually more useful as an in-group signalling mechanism than reasonable beliefs. If I tell you I believe that water is wet, you're left uncertain... you can't know whether I'm for the red tribe or the blue tribe. But if I tell you that I believe something that no one could seriously believe (but is a touchstone of one of the camps), then you know if I'm with you or against you.
In the case of Facebook, those on the right (and especially the alt-right) will conclude that FB is a pack of socialist liberal commies and so anything they mark as false must be true. The AC above is clearly in this camp.
1. Since when is it the personal job of a sitting POTUS to 'rein in' any legitimate U.S. based business, regardless of size?
When his friends/family/business partners are shorting the stock?
(Note that I have absolutely no evidence that this is the case. I'm making a joke. OTOH, I wouldn't be shocked in the slightest if it turned out to be true.)
Trump creates so many wonderful trade-worthy events, both short and long. Whether it's threatening global trade with tariffs or threatening Amazon with an FTC investigation, you can always count on him walking back the fiery rhetoric.
The interesting question is whether he tips off any friends before he does it.
It is not the case that "everyone knew" that Facebook leaked information like a sieve
As usual, you are inverting the burden of proof. It is not up to Facebook avoiders / avoidance enthusiasts to prove that information is / will be leaked. It is up to Facebook to prove that it could not be. Since it cannot be unleaked once leaked.
You fail at reading comprehension. The claim was that everyone knew something. That claim is untrue. I'm not saying anything about whether what they allegedly knew is true or not.
and you haven't deleted Facebook already, you're behind the curve I'm afraid.
You KNOW what they're doing. Why are you still there ?
This is self-congratulatory bullshit, twice over (and note that I deleted my Facebook account in 2010 or so, so I'm not defending my own actions here).
First. It's perfectly possible to work in tech, have a full appreciation for what Facebook has done, and to decide that the trade for the services received is acceptable. This may be because someone doesn't place a high value on privacy on principle, but only on actual negative effects they think they're likely to receive, and they think those are probably small (I actually agree with that). Alternatively, it may be because they place a very high value on the service, which is pretty common because for many people it is where all their family and friends are, and leaving Facebook would significantly reduce their information about those people. I'm not one of them, but I know many, many people who are in this category. Actually, the only reason I'm not one of them is because my wife is on Facebook and tells me what I need to know.
Oh, and don't give me any of that crap about how people got along without Facebook before it existed. That's a seriously stupid argument. It doesn't matter if people got along without Facebook before, by exchanging letters or phone calls or visits. If everyone you care about has moved that stuff to Facebook, then if you decide to leave Facebook you need them all to step up and start using those other mechanisms to communicate with you -- but only with you, because everyone else is on Facebook. Unless you have an outrageously high opinion of yourself you have to know that's not going to happen with any kind of consistency.
Second, you're acting as though there is no new information here, which is ridiculous. It is not the case that "everyone knew" that Facebook leaked information like a sieve. Sure, lots of cynics assumed (without reason or evidence, indeed despite all available reason and evidence) that Facebook resold all of the information it gathered about users. In fact, the recent news has made it even clearer that they don't sell data, else CA wouldn't have had to violate the ToS to steal the data they got on 50M users, they could have simply paid for it. Or the Trump campaign could have, then paid CA to analyze it.
It was reasonable (note that mashing the cynicism pedal to the floor isn't "reasonable", it's by-definition irrational) to assume that Facebook mostly kept the data close because that's how they could most effectively monetize it. And we don't have lots of stories of big Facebook data leaks. A few, and not terribly big, at least on a percentage basis (which is the only rational way to evaluate such risks).
I suppose it's possible that you know a lot about Facebook APIs and already knew that they could be abused to allow Facebook apps to gather data far beyond what users had actually approved sharing with them. If so, then why didn't you write up a paper and tell us all about it sooner, and thereby push Facebook to close the holes faster? It's possible you could even have gotten some cash from the bug bounty program (I don't think that's likely, but it's possible).
So, no, you didn't have that specific knowledge. You're just applying post hoc confirmation of your prior irrationally cynical bias and claiming it as proof that you weren't irrational. But that presumes that irrational behavior which turns out to be correct wasn't irrational. I could be screaming that Bitcoin will hit 100K tomorrow, with absolutely no rational basis for my claim, but whether or not it actually happens doesn't change the fact that my claim was irrational.
Now that we see how leaky Facebook has been, our estimate of probability of actual harm from leakage of private data must increase, which changes the cost/benefit calculation. Does it throw it entirely to the "Must delete Facebook now!" side? Of course not. There's a Laff
Copyright law that clearly retards progress isn't just a bad idea, it's unconstitutional.
I don't know any text in the Constitution that uses phrasing as direct as "clearly retards progress". Care to cite any?
Not necessary. The Constitution says that Congress may do this sort of thing to promote progress. Not succeeding at promoting progress would also be grounds for declaring it unconstitutional, but that's hard to prove because there could be some success, but small and hard to detect. It's much easier to prove that something does the opposite of promoting progress.
The people who stand to lose extraordinary profits from - just as a "for instance" - world economies turning away from fossil fuel-based energy and transportation systems are a different and very much more pernicious matter. They know they're presenting misleading arguments, and they couldn't care less.
I don't think this is actually true. Oh, perhaps it's true of someone somewhere, but not most. The true explanation is both less cynical and more useful: confirmation bias. People who want to believe something (and financial motivation is a good reason to want to believe something) have a startling ability to ignore or pick apart evidence that they don't like, and uncritically accept evidence they do like. And contrary to what you might expect, intelligence and education increase the ability of people to do this, rather than decreasing it.
So apply Hanlon's razor: They're not maliciously rejecting climate change, they're incompetently rejecting it, in a very human way, based on characteristic "bugs" of the human brain. And this is actually a good thing, because if they were rejecting out of malice, then there would never be any hope of convincing them, because they're already convinced and they don't care. But if it's just cognitive bias at work then there is some way that the bias can be overcome and the resistance broken down. We probably don't know what that is, but it exists, and it's almost certainly easier than making them care.
Ummm, evolution is absolutely a scientific theory. That means it has be been repeatedly tested and proven to be true using the scientific method.
No. The core premise of science is that theories can only be falsified, never proven. Every theory is always open for refutation by new observations.
What you should say about evolution is that it's one of the most thoroughly tested theories in scientific history, having been scrutinized from a broad variety of perspectives and disciplines across both the life sciences and the physical sciences, without discovery of any countervailing evidence.
Though what I prefer to say is "Evolution is a theory the same way gravity is a theory, except that the theory of gravity is actually wrong and had to be corrected, while evolution stands unchanged. If you want to distinguish between scientific 'laws' and 'theories', we really should say 'Theory of Gravity' and 'Law of Evolution', not vice versa."
I came here to say the same thing. The summary is terrible. The report basically says that the FBI knew they could get into the phone but didn't want to admit it, so they could pursue the court case and obtain the precedent they wanted.
The loss of some reimbursement for interface design is a worthwhile price to pay for implementation competition.
Particularly true in the United States, where the legal basis for copyright existing at all is Article 1, Section 1 of the US Constitution:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
Copyright law that clearly retards progress isn't just a bad idea, it's unconstitutional.
I guess the main problem is that so many apps are tied deeply to the GApps/Play Store API's.
I think that will change in coming years. A lot of functionality has been added to play services rather than the platform because of the difficulty of updating the platform. If project Treble is successful and updates become easy and fast, then that trend will reverse. Not all of it, of course, because some of those play services APIs are tied to Google cloud services which are not easy to replicate.
Every time I've tried using the whitelisting link, I get an error message that pops up, and disappears at the bottom of the webpage: "Uh oh, something went wrong. Please try again later."
As described in the XDA link, custom ROM users aren't shut out. Individual users can request whitelisting of up to 100 devices, and makers of custom ROMs can also contact Google to get their standard images approved by default.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, miles driven means nothing if nothing unexpected is happening during most of those miles.
This depends both on what happens and on what range of events are expected/handled by the system. Most of Waymo's driving in California is on busy surface streets where lots of random things happen.
Shorter time? Hmm. The joints in my right hand won't crack for a long time after I've cracked them once, but the joints in my left hand can be cracked immediately after cracking them, and I've done this at least thirty times in a row while reading this discussion thread. Perhaps there are multiple causes of cracking joints, some of which don't involve bubbles?
I suppose that's possible. It's the only explanation I've ever heard, other than tendon snapping, but that's usually only on large joints with big tendons going past them.
Nonsense. Oh, sure they might have to call out bits and pieces, perhaps one or two in every article even. But the media does a better job than you're giving it credit for.
Also false. Americans were richer in the 70s. Wealth isn't about big TVs, it's about stability Yes, I can buy a nice TV for $200. But a house is $300,000+ unless I want to live in a slum and drink lead. Health care and education costs have massively outpaced inflation. Food has shot up too in the last 10 years thanks to deregulating the commodities market. Real Buying power is down. Way down.
https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2018/03/daily-chart-19
I made it up a hill in a 1991 Nissan hardbody light pickup with nothing in the back. Generally, loss of traction means slow going; and errant steering is oversteer, easily fixed with countersteering.
I'm rarely worried about getting stuck in a passenger car. If I'm going somewhere that's likely to be an issue, I take the pickup and put it in 4WD. My concern about passenger cars on snow and ice is control, and insufficiently-weighted wheels lose control easily.
When you accelerate, all the load goes onto the back wheels
Only if you're accelerating really hard, which you can't do on slippery roads anyway.
The normal weirdness is understeer, and the response is to turn harder and hope it works; it might not work.
No, if you're understeering, the solution is to let off the gas and slow down.
AWD solves all of this anyway.
True, but at a cost. In the case of a Tesla Model S, the cost difference between a new dual-motor car and a used single-motor car is about as much as the purchase price of a typical family sedan. And I can't find any used dual-motor Model S's for sale.
In any case, with a Model S the weight is almost evenly distributed (48% front, 52% rear) and by all reports the single-motor, RWD version does great on snow... though dual-motor AWD is even better.
I used to drive a RWD pickup truck. When I got FWD, I hated it in the snow. I still hate FWD. :|
All due respect, you're nuts :-)
I drive a FWD car and a RWD pickup. The pickup does okay in the snow, but only because I keep a thousand pounds of rock salt in the bed during the winter. Without that, the rear end is all sorts of squirrelly. You do have to understand the effect of FWD on traction while turning. You can't both turn and accelerate very well, because you are using the same patches of tire to do both. Only so much friction to go around... and on slippery roads, not much of that. But once you understand that, FWD is unquestionably better than RWD on slippery surfaces -- at least for ICEVs which have a big, heavy engine sitting on the front wheels.
Miss-attribution. The pressure variations both cause the bubble and cause them to collapse suddenly. It's called cavitation. We don't normally have bubbles in our joints and we don't build up any over time either.
What does build up in the sinovial fluid is the nitrogen gas which is pulled out of solution (forming bubbles) and then released. After the gas is released, you have to wait a while for gas to migrate from surrounding tissues (by osmosis) before you can crack again.
I've noticed that after loading up a significant amount of nitrogen from repeated deep SCUBA dives, my joints become considerably more "crackly". It takes less motion to pop them, and they can be popped again in a shorter amount of time than normal. Some people tell me they get the same effect just by taking a plane ride that starts at sea level, so the 8000-foot cabin pressure creates enough ppN2 differential to increase cracking. Doesn't do that for me, though.
Thanks, I guess. :-)
Question for you, Rei:
I'm considering buying a used Model S, but I'm not seeing many D versions available, and I'm concerned about how a RWD vehicle fares on snowy roads. I realize it will be better than an ICEV RWD, since their weight distribution is forward while the Model S is more balanced front to back.
How do RWD Teslas do on snow and ice?
"FB is a pack of socialist liberal commies and so anything they mark as false must be true."
No - FB is a pack of capitalist stooges and running dogs. But yes, when FB declares a story to be fake, that's a strong indicator the story may be true.
Thank you for proving my point.
So, that means Conservative news will be eliminated & Liberal lies will be emphasized. Got it!
This is an excellent example of why it's not going to work. Not in the present political climate of the US, anyway.
Suppose for the sake of argument, that Facebook's fact checking were like nothing ever seen in history. Relentless pursuit of absolute, unbiased truth. We'd still see comments like the above... and worse, we'd see people who begin watching for the Facebook "not a fact" ruling in order to proudly believe and promote those articles more.
The problem is that for too many people, the tribal conflict has overtaken truth in importance, because absurd beliefs are actually more useful as an in-group signalling mechanism than reasonable beliefs. If I tell you I believe that water is wet, you're left uncertain... you can't know whether I'm for the red tribe or the blue tribe. But if I tell you that I believe something that no one could seriously believe (but is a touchstone of one of the camps), then you know if I'm with you or against you.
In the case of Facebook, those on the right (and especially the alt-right) will conclude that FB is a pack of socialist liberal commies and so anything they mark as false must be true. The AC above is clearly in this camp.
Sigh.
If Trump doesn't like the post office subsidizing Amazon there's a really, really easy solution: raise the rates. Problem solved.
That would be great. I'm long on UPS.
1. Since when is it the personal job of a sitting POTUS to 'rein in' any legitimate U.S. based business, regardless of size?
When his friends/family/business partners are shorting the stock?
(Note that I have absolutely no evidence that this is the case. I'm making a joke. OTOH, I wouldn't be shocked in the slightest if it turned out to be true.)
Trump creates so many wonderful trade-worthy events, both short and long. Whether it's threatening global trade with tariffs or threatening Amazon with an FTC investigation, you can always count on him walking back the fiery rhetoric.
The interesting question is whether he tips off any friends before he does it.
It is not the case that "everyone knew" that Facebook leaked information like a sieve
As usual, you are inverting the burden of proof. It is not up to Facebook avoiders / avoidance enthusiasts to prove that information is / will be leaked. It is up to Facebook to prove that it could not be. Since it cannot be unleaked once leaked.
You fail at reading comprehension. The claim was that everyone knew something. That claim is untrue. I'm not saying anything about whether what they allegedly knew is true or not.
and you haven't deleted Facebook already, you're behind the curve I'm afraid.
You KNOW what they're doing. Why are you still there ?
This is self-congratulatory bullshit, twice over (and note that I deleted my Facebook account in 2010 or so, so I'm not defending my own actions here).
First. It's perfectly possible to work in tech, have a full appreciation for what Facebook has done, and to decide that the trade for the services received is acceptable. This may be because someone doesn't place a high value on privacy on principle, but only on actual negative effects they think they're likely to receive, and they think those are probably small (I actually agree with that). Alternatively, it may be because they place a very high value on the service, which is pretty common because for many people it is where all their family and friends are, and leaving Facebook would significantly reduce their information about those people. I'm not one of them, but I know many, many people who are in this category. Actually, the only reason I'm not one of them is because my wife is on Facebook and tells me what I need to know.
Oh, and don't give me any of that crap about how people got along without Facebook before it existed. That's a seriously stupid argument. It doesn't matter if people got along without Facebook before, by exchanging letters or phone calls or visits. If everyone you care about has moved that stuff to Facebook, then if you decide to leave Facebook you need them all to step up and start using those other mechanisms to communicate with you -- but only with you, because everyone else is on Facebook. Unless you have an outrageously high opinion of yourself you have to know that's not going to happen with any kind of consistency.
Second, you're acting as though there is no new information here, which is ridiculous. It is not the case that "everyone knew" that Facebook leaked information like a sieve. Sure, lots of cynics assumed (without reason or evidence, indeed despite all available reason and evidence) that Facebook resold all of the information it gathered about users. In fact, the recent news has made it even clearer that they don't sell data, else CA wouldn't have had to violate the ToS to steal the data they got on 50M users, they could have simply paid for it. Or the Trump campaign could have, then paid CA to analyze it.
It was reasonable (note that mashing the cynicism pedal to the floor isn't "reasonable", it's by-definition irrational) to assume that Facebook mostly kept the data close because that's how they could most effectively monetize it. And we don't have lots of stories of big Facebook data leaks. A few, and not terribly big, at least on a percentage basis (which is the only rational way to evaluate such risks).
I suppose it's possible that you know a lot about Facebook APIs and already knew that they could be abused to allow Facebook apps to gather data far beyond what users had actually approved sharing with them. If so, then why didn't you write up a paper and tell us all about it sooner, and thereby push Facebook to close the holes faster? It's possible you could even have gotten some cash from the bug bounty program (I don't think that's likely, but it's possible).
So, no, you didn't have that specific knowledge. You're just applying post hoc confirmation of your prior irrationally cynical bias and claiming it as proof that you weren't irrational. But that presumes that irrational behavior which turns out to be correct wasn't irrational. I could be screaming that Bitcoin will hit 100K tomorrow, with absolutely no rational basis for my claim, but whether or not it actually happens doesn't change the fact that my claim was irrational.
Now that we see how leaky Facebook has been, our estimate of probability of actual harm from leakage of private data must increase, which changes the cost/benefit calculation. Does it throw it entirely to the "Must delete Facebook now!" side? Of course not. There's a Laff
I don't know any text in the Constitution that uses phrasing as direct as "clearly retards progress". Care to cite any?
Not necessary. The Constitution says that Congress may do this sort of thing to promote progress. Not succeeding at promoting progress would also be grounds for declaring it unconstitutional, but that's hard to prove because there could be some success, but small and hard to detect. It's much easier to prove that something does the opposite of promoting progress.
The people who stand to lose extraordinary profits from - just as a "for instance" - world economies turning away from fossil fuel-based energy and transportation systems are a different and very much more pernicious matter. They know they're presenting misleading arguments, and they couldn't care less.
I don't think this is actually true. Oh, perhaps it's true of someone somewhere, but not most. The true explanation is both less cynical and more useful: confirmation bias. People who want to believe something (and financial motivation is a good reason to want to believe something) have a startling ability to ignore or pick apart evidence that they don't like, and uncritically accept evidence they do like. And contrary to what you might expect, intelligence and education increase the ability of people to do this, rather than decreasing it.
So apply Hanlon's razor: They're not maliciously rejecting climate change, they're incompetently rejecting it, in a very human way, based on characteristic "bugs" of the human brain. And this is actually a good thing, because if they were rejecting out of malice, then there would never be any hope of convincing them, because they're already convinced and they don't care. But if it's just cognitive bias at work then there is some way that the bias can be overcome and the resistance broken down. We probably don't know what that is, but it exists, and it's almost certainly easier than making them care.
Ummm, evolution is absolutely a scientific theory. That means it has be been repeatedly tested and proven to be true using the scientific method.
No. The core premise of science is that theories can only be falsified, never proven. Every theory is always open for refutation by new observations.
What you should say about evolution is that it's one of the most thoroughly tested theories in scientific history, having been scrutinized from a broad variety of perspectives and disciplines across both the life sciences and the physical sciences, without discovery of any countervailing evidence.
Though what I prefer to say is "Evolution is a theory the same way gravity is a theory, except that the theory of gravity is actually wrong and had to be corrected, while evolution stands unchanged. If you want to distinguish between scientific 'laws' and 'theories', we really should say 'Theory of Gravity' and 'Law of Evolution', not vice versa."
I came here to say the same thing. The summary is terrible. The report basically says that the FBI knew they could get into the phone but didn't want to admit it, so they could pursue the court case and obtain the precedent they wanted.
The loss of some reimbursement for interface design is a worthwhile price to pay for implementation competition.
Particularly true in the United States, where the legal basis for copyright existing at all is Article 1, Section 1 of the US Constitution:
Copyright law that clearly retards progress isn't just a bad idea, it's unconstitutional.
Please email me as well so I can follow up with you directly, to get any other required information, or to give you status updates.
I guess the main problem is that so many apps are tied deeply to the GApps/Play Store API's.
I think that will change in coming years. A lot of functionality has been added to play services rather than the platform because of the difficulty of updating the platform. If project Treble is successful and updates become easy and fast, then that trend will reverse. Not all of it, of course, because some of those play services APIs are tied to Google cloud services which are not easy to replicate.
Every time I've tried using the whitelisting link, I get an error message that pops up, and disappears at the bottom of the webpage: "Uh oh, something went wrong. Please try again later."
Email me details and I'll file a bug.
As described in the XDA link, custom ROM users aren't shut out. Individual users can request whitelisting of up to 100 devices, and makers of custom ROMs can also contact Google to get their standard images approved by default.