Yep, basically the only way I can see it working would be with automated group sharding. Probably not even AI needed, just a system that learn your preferences based on others who behave similar with blocking to you and would allow social predictive blocking.
It's barely profitable and the user base has stagnated. Essentially, it's just 'still around' rather than a big thing. And worse, it doesn't seem to have any idea about how to resolve the issues.
Frankly, I don't think it can and remain 'twitter'. I don't think the particular communication pattern that twitter supports is sustainable; it's essentially built to guarantee a devolution of conversation into the worst human communication forms, flamewars, bullying, etc.
I think the caring (more) for women is at least partially biologically hardwired, but of course, the advantage of being human is that we don't have to obey our hard wiring when it conflicts with a reasoned ethical position.
Treating men and women when they're on the down and out could happen if we applied ourselves. But currently, as a society, we're more concerned with treating men and women equally in boardrooms, and as there are fewer women on the bottom, well... it's not an area I see getting a high priority in the near future.
Oh, I understand it very well, and was active in a rare non-judgemental forum for a long time. The actual act itself is often triggered due to short term events, but people contemplating suicide have often lived with depression a long time, and among them, interest in methods is so high that most 'help' forums will outright ban any discussion of suicide or methods and/or threaten to call police on anyone discussing it. Most will have had suicidal thoughts for months or years, and looking at how to do it is a normal component of that. Many will prepare for and have a method that is at least realizable within a few days to a week.
Most are smart enough not to actually admit to it to healthcare or family, as nothing good for them, personally, will come from that, so I think it looks a lot more sudden and unresearched in many cases than it actually is.
I doubt masculinity has much to do with it; the human body is simply quite durable. If you want to be certain, it all comes down to one thing; destroying the brain, physically or by oxygen starvation. Most effective ways to do that are by necessity quite violent, and the ones that aren't are technically complicated or highly uncertain. As both men and women contemplating suicide will find that out quite quickly, the disparity must be explained by something else. And like I said, personally I think it's largely due to men being quite sure that they're not going to get any long term help, so they'd better make sure they're off permanently.
"Which is not to say I'm unsympathetic, but the issue isn't the disparity, it's the things that drive people to suicide."
That's saying that women are incompetent at suicide. It's not like it's a big secret that pills and cutting aren't very likely to actually kill you and getting information of easily accessible methods that will actually get the job done isn't more than a search away (automotive assisted decapitation ftw!). Being capable of researching options isn't a gendered thing (or we should re-evaluate a lot of things).
I suspect the reality is that the disparity is largely based on the rational projections of future life chances. There's a large difference in the likely development of a life for those who aren't completely capable of dealing with it for men and women. Women make an ultimately rational choice to keep chances high to get help, because they have a significant chance of actually getting help, and even women who can never support themselves will often be able to life a somewhat decent life, get support from parents, attract a mate, etc. While men... well, a failed suicide attempt isn't exactly CV improving material.
So, whether a fully conscious choice or not, the disparity is sociologically and probably biologically rational. Men have better reasons to be serious about it if they decide to check out.
And I really don't see any tendencies that it will change. Rather, I think our care for women is biologically hardwired, and the way society is progressing for the moment, being unsympathetic to men is more popular than ever. I mean, fuck, look at something like BLM; even if, in reality, the black men are mainly getting shot due to being male rather than being black, would you try launching a 'mens lives matter' movement? I think not.
Then again, there are others who regard polite disagreement as disrespect. I have friends, or, well, 'friends' who I don't discuss politics with as they just can't handle it. I still sometimes listen to their rants, as I personally find all opinions interesting, but they're not likely to convince me of anything. Their arguments are simply pathetically blunt and filled with errors as they never engage in real debate, but rather hang around in an echo chamber.
Of course, if the system actually uses a resolution that accurate, it's quite likely you won't even be your own doppelganger. Retaining water would be enough to throw it off.
I'd wager that evolution and neural net learning has struck a pretty optimal balance between false positives and false negatives for this in the human brain.
Oh, and the human system definitely uses measures the researchers didn't take in this study; ever failed to recognize someone because they're not in the same context you usually see them? Heck, I once spent 2 hours on a train talking to someone I thought I sort of recognized. A day later I realized I'd been talking to a (former) CEO of one of the biggest companies in the country, but of course, I wasn't exactly used to seeing him outside TV or newspapers. Ah, well, at least he got an early insight into free software.
The commission is the only entity that can propose legislation. Usually, you do elect the people who can propose legislation.
The power of the actual elected body, the European Parliament, is still quite limited. They don't even have enough power to prevent their forced relocation from Brussles to Strassbourgh every month, rather being caught in a perpetual schoolyard bully 'stop hitting yourself' moment. They've managed to block legislation, what, once in history?
There are good and bad things about the EU, but democratic credibility isn't one of the good ones.
Yeah, I think it's quite common in most places for the same reasons you mention. And a human or an autonomous car with more situational awareness can deal with those situations by being extra alert and careful and keeping a pre-planned problem resolution at hand (ie, ensuring there's space behind/at the side to emergency break while passing).
But the Tesla just drives right into it, keeps a speed that might as well have been planned to make it invisible to the truck, while closing the distance to the car in front in a place where the road layout makes it look like it's intentionally cutting people from the merging road off from being able to take the exit. It's really bad behaviour.
I can't even say that it's good that it's collision avoidance managed to avoid the collision, because it that's how it works, there's a high chance that people will start to figure 'oh, look, I'm being cut off by a Tesla being a dick. No problem, it's fast enough to deal with me forcing myself into its lane.'.
In the near miss video the Tesla is engaged in behaviour that is so dangerous that it's illegal in many countries, as it's overtaking the truck in the outside lane. The legality might be a bit mitigated due to what seems to be a road merge right before, so the lane speeds might not have gotten sorted out, but considering the off-ramp or whatever it is that the truck is heading for, it's a traffic situation where exactly what happened is highly likely to happen. A situation where most human drivers would be very, very careful about exactly what that truck was doing if they intended to pass it. And where any real autonomous car should absolutely not be moving faster than the cars in the lanes to the left at anywhere near highway speeds.
Reading the actual article (sorry...) the actual reason is that 'computer programmer' in this case means (more or less) 'mainframe programmer'.
The study also includes the titles we would normally be including in 'computer programmer', and they have slightly different statistics...: Software Engineer – $0.94 Mobile Developer – $0.97
Well, it's hardly surprising if the bot used Twitter to build its responses, Twitter seems to excel in dragging it's users mental capacity down into the gutters. Exposing it to Tumblr would probably have resulted in something more stereotypically 'teen girl', and putting it in a class on critical theory and you'd get a random generator of meaningless words.
Neo-Nazi Sex Robot has a better sales potential than windows mobile though, maybe Microsoft should see if it can aquire Boston Dynamics from Google and combine these revolutionary technologies into a truly spectacular future for humankind.
Are they actually serious? I assumed this was the way that it was always done; for as long as I can remember it's always been pointed out that self-destruct traps are essentially pointless as no serious attacker would be so grossly incompetent that they'd try to break into the original.
For things like rubber hose protection you'd use plausible deniability material instead where the 'wrong' password reveals something somewhat embarrassing but fairly innocent, so they basically can't tell if there's anything more available. Destroying the contents instead merely means you gave them the wrong code and they know there's a right one and they still have the next copy and can beat you with the rubber hose until you give them one that unlocks it.
If the FBI is actually working with the original there needs to be some serious firing done...
Quotas we barely ever use anymore, to the extent they exist they tend to be integrated into applications if there's a point to them. Wasting employee time is extremely expensive compared to disk. Most systems support snapshots on multiple levels already, from OS/LVM and virtualization layers down to the SAN/NAS. ACL's, after 30 years, managing probably about 10k unix systems, I have run across a handful of situations where it would have been useful, and exactly zero cases where the cost benefit ratio would have made it economically viable. Most modern filesystems support them, but for applications that need that access granularity, the functionality tends to end up in application or database layers. Minor cache improvements pale in comparison to simply throwing the entire performance demanding application on flash-only, FusionIO or NVME disks.
Boot environments like that have been done in various ways for as long as I can remember, where the earliest were basically the diskless NFS based clients where you could simply copy the filesystem and run the update on that. After that, any simple disk mirror could be split off and cloned for a snapshot system to work with. Thankfully, such functionality is approaching irrelevance as well, as application design is growing up enough to actually build redundancy into the application layer so you can take any number of servers offline at any time. Snapping a root filesystem isn't exactly necessary when the application is built to live on a server instance that will disappear and be replaced with a fresh disposable instantiated image on next reboot...
And yes, most features mean pretty much raid, compression, caching, deduplication, snapshots, etc.
It's not that it's a bad filesystem, it's a quite good one. But the problems it solves are becoming legacy issues of less relevance in an industry where the discussion is shifting toward whether there will be an OS as we know it underpinning the application infrastructure at all.
Making ZFS incompatible with linux was the whole point of putting it under the CDDL from the start.
That said, having run ZFS since pretty much the start on Solaris servers here, it has to be the most overhyped piece of software ever released. Initially it was pretty much unusable for things like database loads, it was unstable as hell and had serious memory usage issues. These days, the glaring problems are largely fixed, but in an enterprise environment most of its features are of limited use as most of the storage will be on centralized SAN/NAS arrays anyway.
The whole discussion is one of those that gives me flashbacks to the 90's, same as when some database guy specifies that they want their volumes on this many striped spindles...
There's a reason why Sweden has one of the highest rape rates in the world and it's not because there are that many actual rapes going on.
But it is somewhat amusing to watch the racists and the feminists fight over it, as the racists claim it's because the immigrants and the feminists have to constantly switch their realities back and forth between 'it's only a statistical issue' and 'but rape is everywhere!', depending on the situation...
But yes, if you read the original police documents, the purpose of going to the police was to force an STD test. That the US was involved I rather doubt, as any borderline chargeable offense will automatically be pushed by the police and prosecution whether the supposed victim wants it or not it's quite enough that an activist prosecutor like Marianne Ny smells some publicity and the opportunity to 'send a message' to start that chain of events and completely screw up the victims life far beyond the original issue. Hopefully Ny's utter incompetence in this has put a permanent black mark on her career.
'In some way or another' probably refers to the various general social security systems that are in place. Technically it pretty much should be hard to starve in many European countries. In practice, many 'normal' will probably kill themselves rather than go through the hoops necessary to ensure payout, while exploiters can make a very decent living off abusing the systems.
Personally I'm in favour of universial basic income, provided all other benefits are removed at the same time. You get what you get, and no, that won't let you live in a decent area of a major city, there won't be any extra payout for special needs, etc.
I think the reason it won't end up done in Europe for a long time is simply that the welfare dependents, their organisations and the welfare administration workers will oppose it. Far too many special interest groups who'd stand to lose a lot.
And if docker means you're going to spend more time managing OS level instances, then any savings on hardware are often eaten within weeks of deployment. Shared systems are a PITA if there's any need to coordinate between multiple users of those systems at all.
The fact is, I suspect the only way to avoid triggering manpower costs while implementing docker currently in a large company is basically to deploy it on a one-container-per-OS-image basis. Basically as an application packaging method. Which of course means there won't be any cost reduction on hardware at all. But then again, nobody cares about that, which should be obvious from the lack of optimization in the actual software running.
If you need to live patch your kernel you've got a misdesigned application. Failures happen and if you can't design your application for redundancy, don't expect uninterrupted service.
If you need to live-patch kernels in your cloud infrastructure, you need to go back to the drawing board because you don't have a cloud, you have a SPOF.
I'm not saying it can't happen, I'm saying that when exercising good judgement, even humans drive to allow leeway for such things. If there's a car that weaves or sways, if it drives close to the lane separator, drives too fast, too slow, etc, you keep enough distance to be able to deal with any random behaviour by that car safely. When you know there are difficult short on-ramps and the lane beside you is free you switch lanes to let other drivers on without any risk of causing a problem situation. Humans do it when we're doing things right. An autonomous car could be programmed to always keep the optimal freedom of action.
"The difficult problem is that sometimes you don't get the luxury of doing that, and unexpected situations can be created faster than you're able to react."
Yes, but the way most traffic situations are designed, it's our big saver that it requires usually not one, but two persons making a mistake for an accident to happen. I've been saved from the consequences of being an idiot by someone else not being an idiot and planning for me being an idiot. And I've saved many others by noting that they're not paying attention and increasing distance, leaving them space to be stupid. Not to mention the number of lives that have been saved by traffic planners saying 'humans are idiots, lets make a roundabout here'. So, if an autonomous car can be programmed to not do the stupid things we do, what are the situations where the best response isn't simply 'make sure it doesn't get into such situations'? And could a human deal with them?
I mean, some things are impossible to deal with. You're not going to be able to handle things like a car going through a guard rail on the overpass and landing in your lane. Some things are more probable, but very hard to deal with as well, like someone deliberately arranging for a frontal collision in a higher speed countryside road. There simply aren't any safe trajectories or distances, so that can't be planned for, but that's not really a difficult decision but more trying to avoid the frontal, where the autonomous car would probably have an edge in reaction time and more accurate sensor feedback providing all viable physically possible options.
It's an interesting problem, but it's not entirely easy to figure out situations where our more complex reasoning skills will actually do us any good once the actual shit hits the fan, or if all situations where such reasoning skills may be of use are actually due to failing to use them earlier.
Indeed. But in that case you have planned your driving so you have, like you say, plenty room in front and behind of you, so you can safely brake or accelerate out of the way of the merger. You don't need to sideswipe someone, because you'd planned for such a situation. You avoid accidents by deliberately planning to be able to deal with dangerous, but physically possible, movement of everything else in the environment.
If your options end up being only really bad ones, you've made at least one, and probably a whole sequence of really bad decisions that have limited your possible actions. That's very human to do, I fiddle with the stereo while driving too fast with not enough distance in rush hour traffic with a lorry to the side with the best of them. But it's not something an autonomous car would have to do, so when comparing human driving with autonomous car driving it's better to use situations that an autonomous car would be as likely as a human to actually get in to, rather than the ones caused by our own bad judgement.
Why is there a car in the adjacent lane in a high-speed situation with objects that can conceivably exhibit behaviour that could cause in impact faster than you can do a controlled break? Sounds like you're driving too fast and tailgating someone while you're passing someone else. How about, you know, not doing that? Accident avoided.
The trick to avoid serious accidents is not to be able to make complex judgement calls in an emergency, humans suck at that, and life isn't Groundhog Day where you get to practice a dozen times 'til you get that call right. The trick to avoid serious accidents is to do your best to ensure you're in a controllable situation as much as possible. You should be keeping enough distance to be able to break when someone more than slams their breaks. You should keep enough clearance to be able to accelerate or decelerate if someone starts moving into your lane. You should keep excessive distance to cyclists or pass them at a controllable speed.
An autonomous car can keep safe margins far better than a human can, and it's much more capable to actually keep the situation within the actual limits of what it can deal with. Because, above all, it wont delude itself into thinking it can actually make perfect complex judgement calls within fractions of a second.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, basically the only way I can see it working would be with automated group sharding. Probably not even AI needed, just a system that learn your preferences based on others who behave similar with blocking to you and would allow social predictive blocking.
It's barely profitable and the user base has stagnated. Essentially, it's just 'still around' rather than a big thing. And worse, it doesn't seem to have any idea about how to resolve the issues.
Frankly, I don't think it can and remain 'twitter'. I don't think the particular communication pattern that twitter supports is sustainable; it's essentially built to guarantee a devolution of conversation into the worst human communication forms, flamewars, bullying, etc.
From what I've read, drones are already an important part of the blow distribution infrastructure.
As far as hookers go, well, I'll be by the time they're delivered via drone, the drone will actually be the hooker...
I think the caring (more) for women is at least partially biologically hardwired, but of course, the advantage of being human is that we don't have to obey our hard wiring when it conflicts with a reasoned ethical position.
Treating men and women when they're on the down and out could happen if we applied ourselves. But currently, as a society, we're more concerned with treating men and women equally in boardrooms, and as there are fewer women on the bottom, well... it's not an area I see getting a high priority in the near future.
Oh, I understand it very well, and was active in a rare non-judgemental forum for a long time. The actual act itself is often triggered due to short term events, but people contemplating suicide have often lived with depression a long time, and among them, interest in methods is so high that most 'help' forums will outright ban any discussion of suicide or methods and/or threaten to call police on anyone discussing it. Most will have had suicidal thoughts for months or years, and looking at how to do it is a normal component of that. Many will prepare for and have a method that is at least realizable within a few days to a week.
Most are smart enough not to actually admit to it to healthcare or family, as nothing good for them, personally, will come from that, so I think it looks a lot more sudden and unresearched in many cases than it actually is.
I doubt masculinity has much to do with it; the human body is simply quite durable. If you want to be certain, it all comes down to one thing; destroying the brain, physically or by oxygen starvation. Most effective ways to do that are by necessity quite violent, and the ones that aren't are technically complicated or highly uncertain. As both men and women contemplating suicide will find that out quite quickly, the disparity must be explained by something else. And like I said, personally I think it's largely due to men being quite sure that they're not going to get any long term help, so they'd better make sure they're off permanently.
"Which is not to say I'm unsympathetic, but the issue isn't the disparity, it's the things that drive people to suicide."
That's saying that women are incompetent at suicide. It's not like it's a big secret that pills and cutting aren't very likely to actually kill you and getting information of easily accessible methods that will actually get the job done isn't more than a search away (automotive assisted decapitation ftw!). Being capable of researching options isn't a gendered thing (or we should re-evaluate a lot of things).
I suspect the reality is that the disparity is largely based on the rational projections of future life chances. There's a large difference in the likely development of a life for those who aren't completely capable of dealing with it for men and women. Women make an ultimately rational choice to keep chances high to get help, because they have a significant chance of actually getting help, and even women who can never support themselves will often be able to life a somewhat decent life, get support from parents, attract a mate, etc. While men... well, a failed suicide attempt isn't exactly CV improving material.
So, whether a fully conscious choice or not, the disparity is sociologically and probably biologically rational. Men have better reasons to be serious about it if they decide to check out.
And I really don't see any tendencies that it will change. Rather, I think our care for women is biologically hardwired, and the way society is progressing for the moment, being unsympathetic to men is more popular than ever. I mean, fuck, look at something like BLM; even if, in reality, the black men are mainly getting shot due to being male rather than being black, would you try launching a 'mens lives matter' movement? I think not.
Then again, there are others who regard polite disagreement as disrespect. I have friends, or, well, 'friends' who I don't discuss politics with as they just can't handle it. I still sometimes listen to their rants, as I personally find all opinions interesting, but they're not likely to convince me of anything. Their arguments are simply pathetically blunt and filled with errors as they never engage in real debate, but rather hang around in an echo chamber.
People with androgen insensitivity syndrome are XY but will develop externally as completely female.
Of course, if the system actually uses a resolution that accurate, it's quite likely you won't even be your own doppelganger. Retaining water would be enough to throw it off.
I'd wager that evolution and neural net learning has struck a pretty optimal balance between false positives and false negatives for this in the human brain.
Oh, and the human system definitely uses measures the researchers didn't take in this study; ever failed to recognize someone because they're not in the same context you usually see them? Heck, I once spent 2 hours on a train talking to someone I thought I sort of recognized. A day later I realized I'd been talking to a (former) CEO of one of the biggest companies in the country, but of course, I wasn't exactly used to seeing him outside TV or newspapers. Ah, well, at least he got an early insight into free software.
The commission is the only entity that can propose legislation. Usually, you do elect the people who can propose legislation.
The power of the actual elected body, the European Parliament, is still quite limited. They don't even have enough power to prevent their forced relocation from Brussles to Strassbourgh every month, rather being caught in a perpetual schoolyard bully 'stop hitting yourself' moment. They've managed to block legislation, what, once in history?
There are good and bad things about the EU, but democratic credibility isn't one of the good ones.
Yeah, I think it's quite common in most places for the same reasons you mention. And a human or an autonomous car with more situational awareness can deal with those situations by being extra alert and careful and keeping a pre-planned problem resolution at hand (ie, ensuring there's space behind/at the side to emergency break while passing).
But the Tesla just drives right into it, keeps a speed that might as well have been planned to make it invisible to the truck, while closing the distance to the car in front in a place where the road layout makes it look like it's intentionally cutting people from the merging road off from being able to take the exit. It's really bad behaviour.
I can't even say that it's good that it's collision avoidance managed to avoid the collision, because it that's how it works, there's a high chance that people will start to figure 'oh, look, I'm being cut off by a Tesla being a dick. No problem, it's fast enough to deal with me forcing myself into its lane.'.
In the near miss video the Tesla is engaged in behaviour that is so dangerous that it's illegal in many countries, as it's overtaking the truck in the outside lane. The legality might be a bit mitigated due to what seems to be a road merge right before, so the lane speeds might not have gotten sorted out, but considering the off-ramp or whatever it is that the truck is heading for, it's a traffic situation where exactly what happened is highly likely to happen. A situation where most human drivers would be very, very careful about exactly what that truck was doing if they intended to pass it. And where any real autonomous car should absolutely not be moving faster than the cars in the lanes to the left at anywhere near highway speeds.
Reading the actual article (sorry...) the actual reason is that 'computer programmer' in this case means (more or less) 'mainframe programmer'.
The study also includes the titles we would normally be including in 'computer programmer', and they have slightly different statistics...:
Software Engineer – $0.94
Mobile Developer – $0.97
Well, it's hardly surprising if the bot used Twitter to build its responses, Twitter seems to excel in dragging it's users mental capacity down into the gutters. Exposing it to Tumblr would probably have resulted in something more stereotypically 'teen girl', and putting it in a class on critical theory and you'd get a random generator of meaningless words.
Neo-Nazi Sex Robot has a better sales potential than windows mobile though, maybe Microsoft should see if it can aquire Boston Dynamics from Google and combine these revolutionary technologies into a truly spectacular future for humankind.
Are they actually serious? I assumed this was the way that it was always done; for as long as I can remember it's always been pointed out that self-destruct traps are essentially pointless as no serious attacker would be so grossly incompetent that they'd try to break into the original.
For things like rubber hose protection you'd use plausible deniability material instead where the 'wrong' password reveals something somewhat embarrassing but fairly innocent, so they basically can't tell if there's anything more available. Destroying the contents instead merely means you gave them the wrong code and they know there's a right one and they still have the next copy and can beat you with the rubber hose until you give them one that unlocks it.
If the FBI is actually working with the original there needs to be some serious firing done...
Quotas we barely ever use anymore, to the extent they exist they tend to be integrated into applications if there's a point to them. Wasting employee time is extremely expensive compared to disk. Most systems support snapshots on multiple levels already, from OS/LVM and virtualization layers down to the SAN/NAS. ACL's, after 30 years, managing probably about 10k unix systems, I have run across a handful of situations where it would have been useful, and exactly zero cases where the cost benefit ratio would have made it economically viable. Most modern filesystems support them, but for applications that need that access granularity, the functionality tends to end up in application or database layers. Minor cache improvements pale in comparison to simply throwing the entire performance demanding application on flash-only, FusionIO or NVME disks.
Boot environments like that have been done in various ways for as long as I can remember, where the earliest were basically the diskless NFS based clients where you could simply copy the filesystem and run the update on that. After that, any simple disk mirror could be split off and cloned for a snapshot system to work with. Thankfully, such functionality is approaching irrelevance as well, as application design is growing up enough to actually build redundancy into the application layer so you can take any number of servers offline at any time. Snapping a root filesystem isn't exactly necessary when the application is built to live on a server instance that will disappear and be replaced with a fresh disposable instantiated image on next reboot...
And yes, most features mean pretty much raid, compression, caching, deduplication, snapshots, etc.
It's not that it's a bad filesystem, it's a quite good one. But the problems it solves are becoming legacy issues of less relevance in an industry where the discussion is shifting toward whether there will be an OS as we know it underpinning the application infrastructure at all.
Making ZFS incompatible with linux was the whole point of putting it under the CDDL from the start.
That said, having run ZFS since pretty much the start on Solaris servers here, it has to be the most overhyped piece of software ever released. Initially it was pretty much unusable for things like database loads, it was unstable as hell and had serious memory usage issues. These days, the glaring problems are largely fixed, but in an enterprise environment most of its features are of limited use as most of the storage will be on centralized SAN/NAS arrays anyway.
The whole discussion is one of those that gives me flashbacks to the 90's, same as when some database guy specifies that they want their volumes on this many striped spindles...
There's a reason why Sweden has one of the highest rape rates in the world and it's not because there are that many actual rapes going on.
But it is somewhat amusing to watch the racists and the feminists fight over it, as the racists claim it's because the immigrants and the feminists have to constantly switch their realities back and forth between 'it's only a statistical issue' and 'but rape is everywhere!', depending on the situation...
But yes, if you read the original police documents, the purpose of going to the police was to force an STD test. That the US was involved I rather doubt, as any borderline chargeable offense will automatically be pushed by the police and prosecution whether the supposed victim wants it or not it's quite enough that an activist prosecutor like Marianne Ny smells some publicity and the opportunity to 'send a message' to start that chain of events and completely screw up the victims life far beyond the original issue. Hopefully Ny's utter incompetence in this has put a permanent black mark on her career.
'In some way or another' probably refers to the various general social security systems that are in place. Technically it pretty much should be hard to starve in many European countries. In practice, many 'normal' will probably kill themselves rather than go through the hoops necessary to ensure payout, while exploiters can make a very decent living off abusing the systems.
Personally I'm in favour of universial basic income, provided all other benefits are removed at the same time. You get what you get, and no, that won't let you live in a decent area of a major city, there won't be any extra payout for special needs, etc.
I think the reason it won't end up done in Europe for a long time is simply that the welfare dependents, their organisations and the welfare administration workers will oppose it. Far too many special interest groups who'd stand to lose a lot.
And if docker means you're going to spend more time managing OS level instances, then any savings on hardware are often eaten within weeks of deployment. Shared systems are a PITA if there's any need to coordinate between multiple users of those systems at all.
The fact is, I suspect the only way to avoid triggering manpower costs while implementing docker currently in a large company is basically to deploy it on a one-container-per-OS-image basis. Basically as an application packaging method. Which of course means there won't be any cost reduction on hardware at all. But then again, nobody cares about that, which should be obvious from the lack of optimization in the actual software running.
If you need to live patch your kernel you've got a misdesigned application. Failures happen and if you can't design your application for redundancy, don't expect uninterrupted service.
If you need to live-patch kernels in your cloud infrastructure, you need to go back to the drawing board because you don't have a cloud, you have a SPOF.
I'm not saying it can't happen, I'm saying that when exercising good judgement, even humans drive to allow leeway for such things. If there's a car that weaves or sways, if it drives close to the lane separator, drives too fast, too slow, etc, you keep enough distance to be able to deal with any random behaviour by that car safely. When you know there are difficult short on-ramps and the lane beside you is free you switch lanes to let other drivers on without any risk of causing a problem situation. Humans do it when we're doing things right. An autonomous car could be programmed to always keep the optimal freedom of action.
"The difficult problem is that sometimes you don't get the luxury of doing that, and unexpected situations can be created faster than you're able to react."
Yes, but the way most traffic situations are designed, it's our big saver that it requires usually not one, but two persons making a mistake for an accident to happen. I've been saved from the consequences of being an idiot by someone else not being an idiot and planning for me being an idiot. And I've saved many others by noting that they're not paying attention and increasing distance, leaving them space to be stupid. Not to mention the number of lives that have been saved by traffic planners saying 'humans are idiots, lets make a roundabout here'. So, if an autonomous car can be programmed to not do the stupid things we do, what are the situations where the best response isn't simply 'make sure it doesn't get into such situations'? And could a human deal with them?
I mean, some things are impossible to deal with. You're not going to be able to handle things like a car going through a guard rail on the overpass and landing in your lane. Some things are more probable, but very hard to deal with as well, like someone deliberately arranging for a frontal collision in a higher speed countryside road. There simply aren't any safe trajectories or distances, so that can't be planned for, but that's not really a difficult decision but more trying to avoid the frontal, where the autonomous car would probably have an edge in reaction time and more accurate sensor feedback providing all viable physically possible options.
It's an interesting problem, but it's not entirely easy to figure out situations where our more complex reasoning skills will actually do us any good once the actual shit hits the fan, or if all situations where such reasoning skills may be of use are actually due to failing to use them earlier.
Yep. But the autonomous car wouldn't, and I wouldn't care as I'd be downing a beer and watching TV on my way from work.
Indeed. But in that case you have planned your driving so you have, like you say, plenty room in front and behind of you, so you can safely brake or accelerate out of the way of the merger. You don't need to sideswipe someone, because you'd planned for such a situation. You avoid accidents by deliberately planning to be able to deal with dangerous, but physically possible, movement of everything else in the environment.
If your options end up being only really bad ones, you've made at least one, and probably a whole sequence of really bad decisions that have limited your possible actions. That's very human to do, I fiddle with the stereo while driving too fast with not enough distance in rush hour traffic with a lorry to the side with the best of them. But it's not something an autonomous car would have to do, so when comparing human driving with autonomous car driving it's better to use situations that an autonomous car would be as likely as a human to actually get in to, rather than the ones caused by our own bad judgement.
Why is there a car in the adjacent lane in a high-speed situation with objects that can conceivably exhibit behaviour that could cause in impact faster than you can do a controlled break? Sounds like you're driving too fast and tailgating someone while you're passing someone else. How about, you know, not doing that? Accident avoided.
The trick to avoid serious accidents is not to be able to make complex judgement calls in an emergency, humans suck at that, and life isn't Groundhog Day where you get to practice a dozen times 'til you get that call right. The trick to avoid serious accidents is to do your best to ensure you're in a controllable situation as much as possible. You should be keeping enough distance to be able to break when someone more than slams their breaks. You should keep enough clearance to be able to accelerate or decelerate if someone starts moving into your lane. You should keep excessive distance to cyclists or pass them at a controllable speed.
An autonomous car can keep safe margins far better than a human can, and it's much more capable to actually keep the situation within the actual limits of what it can deal with. Because, above all, it wont delude itself into thinking it can actually make perfect complex judgement calls within fractions of a second.