I should't be able to steer your car into a rock face by painting a QR code on it.
We can't build AI that relies on special signs or road markings or vehicle-to-vehicle communication. That's a terribly brittle approach, and way too easy to maliciously or accidentally defeat.
We need to build AI that relies on sensing its environment and behaving safely in all situations, including by pulling over and handing control over to a human when it gets confused.
Obviously power to weight ratio *matters*. The question is whether there's some unsolvable physics reason that someone can't make a street-legal airplane. You gave a lot of reasons of why it's a difficult engineering problem, but no reasons of why it's precluded by physics. The short answer is: "it isn't".
If the world listened to/. then all sorts of modern technology wouldn't exist. We wouldn't have rockets that could land upright or electric cars with 250+ mile range or [frankly] smartphones.
In many ways it is easier to make a pilot-less plane than it is to make a driver-less car, and there are plenty of smart people working on both. They are both going to happen.
cars were originally called "horseless carriages"--so be patient, vocabulary will catch up.
And...I'm not aware of any physics that prevents making a flying car. What's the power-to-weight issue? Planes are pretty heavy and they manage to get off the ground. It's somewhat harder to make a plane that's also street-legal, but I don't think there's any new physics required.
And since when is an "affinity group" == "discriminatory group"? Is a Christian sunday school class discriminatory because it doesn't allow non-Christian teachers? Is my college alumni organization discriminatory because you have to be an alum to join? Do you want 10,000 more examples?
All that happened here is that in your messed up self-centered universe you interpreted "let's get more LGBT/women into tech" as "let's get rid of all those cis straight white males in tech".
No, I'm assuming that if there's a historically under-represented group then it may be due to any number of factors--some of which may be addressed by spending a little effort actively trying to boost participation.
Sure, you can choose to look at it as a form of discrimination. Or you could develop a thicker skin and go back to your Ayn Rand novel.
So he's leaving because the "LLVM code of
conduct" says incendiary things like "Be friendly and patient." and "Be careful in the words that you choose and be kind to others".
Oh, and they're participating in an outreach program to encourage under-represented demographics to participate in open source project.
I guess that was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Also, which $30K Ford has:
1. a giant touch screen with built-in maps & navigation
2. lane assist, collision avoidance, auto-breaking
3. 5 star crash rating
4. backup camera
5. power lift-gate
6. > 60 cubic feet of cargo volume
X Nobody will ever make a fast electric car.
X Well, Tesla will never make an electric sedan that people actually want
X It takes 12 hours to charge an electric car
X They'll never sell more than a few thousand of them
X They'll never sell 100K cars
X They'll never make a $35K electric car with >200 miles of range
X They'll sell maybe 50K of them
X SpaceX will never be competitive
X SpaceX will never reliably land boosters
X Well, they haven't reused them yet
No product is perfect, everything comes with compromises, and people value things very differently--that's why we have different products.
This is something that everyone understands intuitively for every other type of product in the world. Some people like to spend lots of money on jeans or luxury cars or whatever. People can spend their money however they want, just because they spend it differently than you doesn't make them stupid.
This is really, really obvious. Anyone who doesn't understand it is stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Self-driving doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than humans. I don't know of too many humans with lidar.
I should't be able to steer your car into a rock face by painting a QR code on it.
We can't build AI that relies on special signs or road markings or vehicle-to-vehicle communication. That's a terribly brittle approach, and way too easy to maliciously or accidentally defeat.
We need to build AI that relies on sensing its environment and behaving safely in all situations, including by pulling over and handing control over to a human when it gets confused.
You're clearly very smart, put your money where your mouth is.
Obviously power to weight ratio *matters*. The question is whether there's some unsolvable physics reason that someone can't make a street-legal airplane. You gave a lot of reasons of why it's a difficult engineering problem, but no reasons of why it's precluded by physics. The short answer is: "it isn't".
If the world listened to /. then all sorts of modern technology wouldn't exist. We wouldn't have rockets that could land upright or electric cars with 250+ mile range or [frankly] smartphones.
In many ways it is easier to make a pilot-less plane than it is to make a driver-less car, and there are plenty of smart people working on both. They are both going to happen.
cars were originally called "horseless carriages"--so be patient, vocabulary will catch up.
And...I'm not aware of any physics that prevents making a flying car. What's the power-to-weight issue? Planes are pretty heavy and they manage to get off the ground. It's somewhat harder to make a plane that's also street-legal, but I don't think there's any new physics required.
It'll happen.
At an ASP of $40K, that's about $18.5B in orders. That's a lot of money.
"once Microsoft releases Zune, they're going to crush the iPod" - some idiot on Slashdot in 2006
That's not how market disruption works, genius.
And since when is an "affinity group" == "discriminatory group"? Is a Christian sunday school class discriminatory because it doesn't allow non-Christian teachers? Is my college alumni organization discriminatory because you have to be an alum to join? Do you want 10,000 more examples?
All that happened here is that in your messed up self-centered universe you interpreted "let's get more LGBT/women into tech" as "let's get rid of all those cis straight white males in tech".
my post was an adequate summary of both.
> You're assuming correlation implies causation
No, I'm assuming that if there's a historically under-represented group then it may be due to any number of factors--some of which may be addressed by spending a little effort actively trying to boost participation.
Sure, you can choose to look at it as a form of discrimination. Or you could develop a thicker skin and go back to your Ayn Rand novel.
This one is taken. By humans.
So he's leaving because the "LLVM code of conduct" says incendiary things like "Be friendly and patient." and "Be careful in the words that you choose and be kind to others".
Oh, and they're participating in an outreach program to encourage under-represented demographics to participate in open source project.
I guess that was the straw that broke the camel's back.
nt
And don't get me started on tractors.
you know, the company with a $900B market cap?
Also, which $30K Ford has:
1. a giant touch screen with built-in maps & navigation
2. lane assist, collision avoidance, auto-breaking
3. 5 star crash rating
4. backup camera
5. power lift-gate
6. > 60 cubic feet of cargo volume
Those guys are not screwing around.
nt
Idiot.
X Nobody will ever make a fast electric car.
X Well, Tesla will never make an electric sedan that people actually want
X It takes 12 hours to charge an electric car
X They'll never sell more than a few thousand of them
X They'll never sell 100K cars
X They'll never make a $35K electric car with >200 miles of range
X They'll sell maybe 50K of them
X SpaceX will never be competitive
X SpaceX will never reliably land boosters
X Well, they haven't reused them yet
I assume that handle is supposed to be ironic?
No product is perfect, everything comes with compromises, and people value things very differently--that's why we have different products.
This is something that everyone understands intuitively for every other type of product in the world. Some people like to spend lots of money on jeans or luxury cars or whatever. People can spend their money however they want, just because they spend it differently than you doesn't make them stupid.
This is really, really obvious. Anyone who doesn't understand it is stupid.
Including you.
HP Elite X2 1012
Don't bother denying it, that just makes you look more guilty.
Do you see now why we ask for proof of guilt and not proof of innocence?