Oh, sure. There's a lot of background knowledge required to follow any of it.
But, honestly, even among people with a reasonable foundation in science... string theory falls into two camps: a) those who make crazy strange metaphors as if they understand it, and b) those who roll their eyes at the people who use crazy strange metaphors as if they understand it.
So, I conclude that string theory causes an extreme polarization of dork-ions, a lot of hyperbole, and way too little actual understanding or predictive value to be of much use.;-)
criticized string theory in an interview: "I don't like that they're not calculating anything," he said. "I don't like that they don't check their ideas. I don't like that for anything that disagrees with an experiment, they cook up an explanation--a fix-up to say, 'Well, it still might be true.': These words have since been much-quoted by opponents of the string-theoretic direction for particle physics.
I'll flat out admit I can't come close to understanding the voodoo which is string theory.
But that Feynman didn't either, and I've heard more recent quotes from physicists who basically say they don't know what it is either... I feel I'm in good company.
I accept that my tiny little money brain isn't up to the task. But I'm not the only one saying "WTF?" about string theory.
I'm wondering why all the heavy particles that were found with the colliders, were not observed during all the nuclear tests that were done during the 30 or years or so from 1945 till 1975.
Better instrumentation and better understanding would be my guesses.
It's awfully hard to measure things you don't know are there, don't expect to be there, and don't have things which can detect them.
I'm pretty sure Higgs was mocked for his idea of the Higgs boson. Flash forward, and our understanding is much better... and now he was right all along.
Likewise, I'm betting the LHC doesn't have detectors for unicornions... because we have no theoretical model for unicornions.
Aren't there like 40 things called string theory, ranging from merely odd or unlikely all the way up to batshit crazy?
I've gotten the sense over the years there's so many things called string theory you can't coherently say what any of it is, or how you'd test it.
Hell, I'm not even convinced many physicists take it seriously. Which means for the layperson, it mostly sounds like gibberish.
It just has all the hallmarks of being so unexplainable as to be meaningless. Which I'm sure is grounded in my lack of understanding due to the fact that it's so magical as to be unexplainable.
Yeah, a lot of pedestrians are too stupid to understand either traffic laws, or when they should walk, or the physics of a car hurtling towards them.
One of the scariest thing I've seen is what happens when you try to teach children how to cross the street.
I once saw a small child, who apparently had been told if you want to cross the street you stick out your arm. The problem is nobody apparently stressed the "and wait for traffic to stop" part.
So the stupid little brat makes a 90 degree turn from the sidewalk, sticks out his arm, and starts walking. Didn't even look. It was actually a miracle he didn't end up dead.
Pedestrians really need to have this point reinforced, or beaten into them if necessary... big heavy things do not stop with zero warning, and you can't simply decide that being a pedestrian is somehow magical and protects you.
Especially, if as in your example, the pedestrian is too stupid to know they can't cross against the signal.
However, in fairness to pedestrians... I've seen a lot of cars doing a rolling stop and a right hand turn who drive right through a crosswalk with people who do have the signal.
So this isn't limited to just drivers or just pedestrians.
Its about the DJ banter, weather & traffic news etc.
Really? Because I think DJ banter is one of the most annoying things you could possibly hear on the radio.
Other than hearing the same song 5 times in a day every time I find myself in a car (this actually happened on my last vacation).
It was like "why the hell is it that every time I start this car that song is playing on the radio?" I had to find a new radio station.
and to be surprised by a track I'd probably never have streamed or downloaded myself
LOL, I used to know someone who kept his radio on at his desk while he worked... and then he started being able to tell what part of the hour they were in based on which songs were in rotation. Because it seemed like the same song would play at the same time every day, until it was replaced with a new song, to play at the same time every day.
Many many radio stations really only seem to play the same 10-15 songs, and randomly throw in something novel for "variety".
Maybe I'm unusual in that sense(*), but I despise radio DJs.
(*) The other ways I'm unusual are mostly irrelevant to radio DJs.
I was amazed at how he could fill the entire 20 minutes with *nothing* but management buzzwords, and say pretty much nothing else at all.
Honestly, I'm surprised you're surprised. Because with a 4-digit id I'm sure you've heard way too many CEOs speak.
I remember dreading the quarterly bullshit call with the CEO where he'd do exactly what you described.
It wasn't uncommon to pass out buzzword bingo sheets to the developers before the call... because it usually took realize the extent to which the rest of the company thinks they're clowns.
You are clinging to your misconception about what CS is
Oh, go fuck yourself you idiot.
I have a degree in CS. I've been in the industry for almost 20 years, I've spent time as a coder and a consultant. I've designed and built stuff. I've maintained stuff. I've done many things.
I have never personally known any of these people you refer to. I have never worked in a place which has these "computer scienticians" who don't actually do anything.
So, enlighten me. Please, feel free to suggest examples of these jobs which may not coincide with my actual experience. I know I haven't seen every possible job, but I also know I haven't ever seen what you're talking about.
Don't be an douchebag who claims I don't know about about CS, because you can cram that up your ass until you choke on it.
But I have known a couple of people who graduated with a masters degree who could barely code, and who otherwise found that nobody wanted someone whose skillset was limited to purely theoretical applications. Because nobody was doing purely theoretical applications.
Which, if you think about it, is probably smaller as a percentage of population than pool drownings in the US is.
I don't meant to downplay "several hundred deaths", but in a country with a billion people... you can probably attribute several hundred deaths to a long list of things, some of them probably quite odd.
Hell, how many people die due to tornadoes and hurricanes every year in North America?
and the same is true of a CS grad. Their ideal employment will have little to do with coding.
Right, all of those purely theoretical type jobs which do advanced research in CS just because it's pretty.
Sorry, but I've known people with masters degrees, and a couple of PhDs... either you're in academia, or you're in industry. And if you are in industry you are doing product design/engineering, and probably some coding.
And, as my prof used to point out... computer science is doing science on a computer. Computing science is the science of how we do things with computers.
But I simply do not believe that CS grads will never be near code or involved in product development. Organizations don't have places for people whose work is so theoretical they would never touch code. Those people generally serve no purpose in industry.
So, I have no idea of where these mythical unicorns of CS graduates who don't program are, or what the hell they are doing for companies... but I've never met one.
I've met a few people who had Masters degrees but were terrible coders... which means they were useless as coders, and somehow expected to have a job in which they could just think of cool things. And I don't think that's a real thing.
Except underground, which is the obvious solution but people are too fixated on making housing above the ground.
Do you get the impression Mars One has planned on bringing enough excavating equipment to make this viable?
The technological challenges of underground cities on Mars are not going to be viable for the first people there.
If you plan on doing that, you need to pre-stage your equipment there, or dig by hand.
Yes, in theory, underground solves one possible problem. But it's a long way from solving enough of them.
So, while I applaud looking into what we need to do, and exploring what works... I'm still convinced that, in particular, Mars One is nothing but a PR stunt and have absolutely not come anywhere near the point of actually being able to overcome the hurdles they need to.
But that first ship of people to land there is going to need to be up and running within a few days, not months or weeks. Because they'll be in an incredibly hostile environment with nobody around to help them.
You know the GP has a point.. if the children are learning that science is what we want it to be, or that the world is 6,000 years old, or that humans rode dinosaurs, or that fossils are a big scam... then at that point you might find they lack the critical reasoning and logic skills required to do anything in the STEM fields.
Reality exists. Cause and effect are real things.
But an increasing amount of people (it seems) choose to go "la la la" and loudly say reality is whatever their beliefs tell them it is, and that objective science is mostly just a guess.
Even if you just add something, eg "\ " if spaces do special things, and a user input "\" can be stored internally as "\\".
Eccch... and suddenly I'm reminded of things where you need to escape the escape of the escaping of the escape so that it doesn't keel over.
And then it become "Yo, Dawg, I hear you like escape characters".
It can pretty quickly devolve into really annoying things, especially when something else wants to read it, or when humans have to. I've seen things with things which turned into nightmares of "\\\\\\".
I think you hit the nail on the head when you observed "they never bothered testing."
Now, that is a bit disingenuous. TFS says The text string is specific enough that it's unlikely to happen by accident.
You can test and test and test, and it's still not possible to say you have tested every conceivable combination of stuff.
This doesn't sound like an "easy-to-catch and easy-to-exploit bug", this sounds like something obscure and unlikely. And it can be a bear tracking down and identifying something like that.
Unless Apple tested with every possible combination of characters, or had a test case which exactly matched this, I can easily see this being something which would get missed.
Technology won't replace the actual artists, just the hacks and copycats. The artists are the ones doing new and interesting things with the technology, instead of just cranking out clones of successful things.
Seriously, where do we go from here? How long before the musical overlords simply ask the computer to calculate the next beat and vocal pitch based on revenue?
I doubt it.
It seems like when people try to understand the "key factors which make a successful song/movie/book", and then try to apply it, you end up with some soulless terrible thing which everybody hates.
Stuff designed by committee to resemble something which was successful is usually dreck, and people can tell.
There will always be artists who have their own style and do their own new and cool things. The ones focusing on making "Fast Pop Song #5", or "Heartfelt Boyband Song #2"... well, that's their problem.
And, honestly, if they produce based on ad revenue, they deserve what they get. As an active buyer of CDs, I don't find music through ads, I don't consume it in a medium which allows them a glimpse of how and when I play it.
I can say with 100% certainty not a single person has ever received a penny from ad revenue from me listening to music. And they never will.
All I know somewhere there is a computer system which records CD sales which sees the stuff I buy at the same time and says "don't know how to quantify that bizarre cross section", and then the music industry doesn't get a damned thing ever again. Not ad revenue, not analytics, not anything.
Honestly, I'd love some additional coaching and opportunity to try some of the more dynamic things they do.
Some of those challenges look hella tough, and are well outside what many people will ever get the chance to try.
I've been driving for almost 30 years and have never had an accident. But some of that stuff looks like it would be challenging for even decent drivers.
Are you fucking stupid on purpose, or did someone hit you with a Volvo?
Are you a fucking asshole on purpose, or does someone need to hit you with a Volvo? Because you're just a screeching monkey on the internet at the moment.
Look, put your bullshit away and try to be a grown up. If you can't, then fuck the hell off.
What the fuck are you on about? How many vehicles even have the feature as an option, never mind as standard?
If you have auto-park, auto-park sure as hell better include the "don't run over pedestrians" as standard with that.
If you don't have auto-park, there is no problem.
But when auto park is an option, and "don't kill pedestrians" is another option, that's just moronic. The Volvo spokesperson straight up said that's an additional option. Which means there exist configurations of this vehicle which will auto-park and run over pedestrians.
Now, please, go be an asshole elsewhere and learn how to fucking read.
because Cottage and a third party vendor, INSYNC Computer Solution, Inc. failed to follow "minimum required practices," as spelled out in the policy. Among other things, Cottage "stored medical records on a system that was fully accessible to the internet but failed to install encryption or take other security measures to protect patient information from becoming available to anyone who 'surfed' the Internet," the complaint alleges
And now what we need is criminal/financial penalties for companies who are so blindingly inept at security.
If your business model involves confidential personal information, and you are this incompetent, you have no business being in the business you're in.
This just screams someone was lazy, stupid, indifferent, or cheap... possibly all of these things.
I can completely see insurance companies saying "hell no we're not paying".
When companies start having actual liability for being that terrible at security, they'll do something. Right now, they can mostly just say "wow, we wish we were sorry".
You know what: Until there are no human controls at all, everything is entirely driver error.
Because that's where the legal liability will be.
So, "driver incompetently shows off technology he didn't pay for but which should have been mandatory" is, in my mind, no different than "idiot crams car into reverse and drives over pedestrians".
As I said "until such time as Google (or whoever makes it) takes legal and financial responsibility for everything its car does (which they never will)... then people should either carry a lot of extra insurance, or simply not buy one of these things."
Make no mistake about it, your fancy car is still your car, and you are still legally responsible for it. So if it kills someone, you still get to keep the criminal charges and the liability.
In which case you might as well drive the damned car yourself.
The problem is that it's going to take multiple deaths before people realize that these things aren't magic, and still have corner cases where they break down. And, the driver will be on the hook for those, no matter what anybody says.
Companies want to make (partly) autonomous vehicle activity, but the "don't kill people" component is a fucking upgrade? What asshole in marketing thought that was a good idea?
I keep saying, autonomous vehicles are all or nothing... either you completely trust it, or you completely don't. There is zero middle ground.
Some half-assed measure of "well, it mostly works, but you need to watch out for pedestrians" or suddenly getting "hey, human, you'll die if you don't get us out of this mess in 3 seconds" basically mean this crap is a toy, and not ready to function in the real world.
So, until such time as Google (or whoever makes it) takes legal and financial responsibility for everything its car does (which they never will)... then people should either carry a lot of extra insurance, or simply not buy one of these things.
Because when you kill someone, you can bet your ass the car company won't be stepping in to pay your legal bills. And since it's your car, you deserve what you got.
Self driving cars is technology's latest form of onanism. And I remain very skeptical they'll be safe or trustworthy for a very long time.
I'm just waiting for the first driver to be imprisoned because his autonomous car killed someone, and the criminal negligence falls to them.
Bullet points and slide presentations did not start with PowerPoint. If anything, the "bullet point thinking" of the Challenger tragedy shows that we were already experts at presenting information poorly before we had software tools to make us more efficient at it.
Of course we did.
For how many decades was the transparency projector used in academia and other things?
And some of us also remember things with slide projectors where the audio went "bing" for some schmuck to advance the slide.
Power Point is bells and whistles on some pretty basic technology we've had for a very long time.
But, honestly... if people wanted the Microsoft stuff, they'd have bought a Microsoft phone.
I find myself thinking... why the hell would I want Microsoft anything on an Android or iOS device?
Is there a market of people tripping over themselves for this? Unless it was a corporate device and I had no choice, I see zero value in this for anybody who didn't buy a Microsoft product to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, sure. There's a lot of background knowledge required to follow any of it.
But, honestly, even among people with a reasonable foundation in science ... string theory falls into two camps: a) those who make crazy strange metaphors as if they understand it, and b) those who roll their eyes at the people who use crazy strange metaphors as if they understand it.
So, I conclude that string theory causes an extreme polarization of dork-ions, a lot of hyperbole, and way too little actual understanding or predictive value to be of much use. ;-)
Sure, but ... if Richard Feynmann
I'll flat out admit I can't come close to understanding the voodoo which is string theory.
But that Feynman didn't either, and I've heard more recent quotes from physicists who basically say they don't know what it is either ... I feel I'm in good company.
I accept that my tiny little money brain isn't up to the task. But I'm not the only one saying "WTF?" about string theory.
Better instrumentation and better understanding would be my guesses.
It's awfully hard to measure things you don't know are there, don't expect to be there, and don't have things which can detect them.
I'm pretty sure Higgs was mocked for his idea of the Higgs boson. Flash forward, and our understanding is much better ... and now he was right all along.
Likewise, I'm betting the LHC doesn't have detectors for unicornions ... because we have no theoretical model for unicornions.
Aren't there like 40 things called string theory, ranging from merely odd or unlikely all the way up to batshit crazy?
I've gotten the sense over the years there's so many things called string theory you can't coherently say what any of it is, or how you'd test it.
Hell, I'm not even convinced many physicists take it seriously. Which means for the layperson, it mostly sounds like gibberish.
It just has all the hallmarks of being so unexplainable as to be meaningless. Which I'm sure is grounded in my lack of understanding due to the fact that it's so magical as to be unexplainable.
Yeah, a lot of pedestrians are too stupid to understand either traffic laws, or when they should walk, or the physics of a car hurtling towards them.
One of the scariest thing I've seen is what happens when you try to teach children how to cross the street.
I once saw a small child, who apparently had been told if you want to cross the street you stick out your arm. The problem is nobody apparently stressed the "and wait for traffic to stop" part.
So the stupid little brat makes a 90 degree turn from the sidewalk, sticks out his arm, and starts walking. Didn't even look. It was actually a miracle he didn't end up dead.
Pedestrians really need to have this point reinforced, or beaten into them if necessary ... big heavy things do not stop with zero warning, and you can't simply decide that being a pedestrian is somehow magical and protects you.
Especially, if as in your example, the pedestrian is too stupid to know they can't cross against the signal.
However, in fairness to pedestrians ... I've seen a lot of cars doing a rolling stop and a right hand turn who drive right through a crosswalk with people who do have the signal.
So this isn't limited to just drivers or just pedestrians.
Really? Because I think DJ banter is one of the most annoying things you could possibly hear on the radio.
Other than hearing the same song 5 times in a day every time I find myself in a car (this actually happened on my last vacation).
It was like "why the hell is it that every time I start this car that song is playing on the radio?" I had to find a new radio station.
LOL, I used to know someone who kept his radio on at his desk while he worked ... and then he started being able to tell what part of the hour they were in based on which songs were in rotation. Because it seemed like the same song would play at the same time every day, until it was replaced with a new song, to play at the same time every day.
Many many radio stations really only seem to play the same 10-15 songs, and randomly throw in something novel for "variety".
Maybe I'm unusual in that sense(*), but I despise radio DJs.
(*) The other ways I'm unusual are mostly irrelevant to radio DJs.
Honestly, I'm surprised you're surprised. Because with a 4-digit id I'm sure you've heard way too many CEOs speak.
I remember dreading the quarterly bullshit call with the CEO where he'd do exactly what you described.
It wasn't uncommon to pass out buzzword bingo sheets to the developers before the call ... because it usually took realize the extent to which the rest of the company thinks they're clowns.
Oh, go fuck yourself you idiot.
I have a degree in CS. I've been in the industry for almost 20 years, I've spent time as a coder and a consultant. I've designed and built stuff. I've maintained stuff. I've done many things.
I have never personally known any of these people you refer to. I have never worked in a place which has these "computer scienticians" who don't actually do anything.
So, enlighten me. Please, feel free to suggest examples of these jobs which may not coincide with my actual experience. I know I haven't seen every possible job, but I also know I haven't ever seen what you're talking about.
Don't be an douchebag who claims I don't know about about CS, because you can cram that up your ass until you choke on it.
But I have known a couple of people who graduated with a masters degree who could barely code, and who otherwise found that nobody wanted someone whose skillset was limited to purely theoretical applications. Because nobody was doing purely theoretical applications.
Which, if you think about it, is probably smaller as a percentage of population than pool drownings in the US is.
I don't meant to downplay "several hundred deaths", but in a country with a billion people ... you can probably attribute several hundred deaths to a long list of things, some of them probably quite odd.
Hell, how many people die due to tornadoes and hurricanes every year in North America?
Again, I reiterate ...
Did you have a choice in your lack of reading comprehension? Or is it innate?
Yeah? So explain all those people in the central US who live in tornado-prone areas. Or people who are in the path of hurricanes. Or on flood plains.
People don't get a choice about where they are born.
And if you're sufficiently poor, you might not have the option to fix it.
Other than academia, what exactly are those jobs again? Because I've not heard of them.
Corporations aren't doing theoretical computer science. They're creating products.
Right, all of those purely theoretical type jobs which do advanced research in CS just because it's pretty.
Sorry, but I've known people with masters degrees, and a couple of PhDs ... either you're in academia, or you're in industry. And if you are in industry you are doing product design/engineering, and probably some coding.
And, as my prof used to point out ... computer science is doing science on a computer. Computing science is the science of how we do things with computers.
But I simply do not believe that CS grads will never be near code or involved in product development. Organizations don't have places for people whose work is so theoretical they would never touch code. Those people generally serve no purpose in industry.
So, I have no idea of where these mythical unicorns of CS graduates who don't program are, or what the hell they are doing for companies ... but I've never met one.
I've met a few people who had Masters degrees but were terrible coders ... which means they were useless as coders, and somehow expected to have a job in which they could just think of cool things. And I don't think that's a real thing.
Do you get the impression Mars One has planned on bringing enough excavating equipment to make this viable?
The technological challenges of underground cities on Mars are not going to be viable for the first people there.
If you plan on doing that, you need to pre-stage your equipment there, or dig by hand.
Yes, in theory, underground solves one possible problem. But it's a long way from solving enough of them.
So, while I applaud looking into what we need to do, and exploring what works ... I'm still convinced that, in particular, Mars One is nothing but a PR stunt and have absolutely not come anywhere near the point of actually being able to overcome the hurdles they need to.
But that first ship of people to land there is going to need to be up and running within a few days, not months or weeks. Because they'll be in an incredibly hostile environment with nobody around to help them.
You know the GP has a point .. if the children are learning that science is what we want it to be, or that the world is 6,000 years old, or that humans rode dinosaurs, or that fossils are a big scam ... then at that point you might find they lack the critical reasoning and logic skills required to do anything in the STEM fields.
Reality exists. Cause and effect are real things.
But an increasing amount of people (it seems) choose to go "la la la" and loudly say reality is whatever their beliefs tell them it is, and that objective science is mostly just a guess.
And that is going to be a huge problem.
Eccch ... and suddenly I'm reminded of things where you need to escape the escape of the escaping of the escape so that it doesn't keel over.
And then it become "Yo, Dawg, I hear you like escape characters".
It can pretty quickly devolve into really annoying things, especially when something else wants to read it, or when humans have to. I've seen things with things which turned into nightmares of "\\\\\\".
Now, that is a bit disingenuous. TFS says The text string is specific enough that it's unlikely to happen by accident.
You can test and test and test, and it's still not possible to say you have tested every conceivable combination of stuff.
This doesn't sound like an "easy-to-catch and easy-to-exploit bug", this sounds like something obscure and unlikely. And it can be a bear tracking down and identifying something like that.
Unless Apple tested with every possible combination of characters, or had a test case which exactly matched this, I can easily see this being something which would get missed.
Technology won't replace the actual artists, just the hacks and copycats. The artists are the ones doing new and interesting things with the technology, instead of just cranking out clones of successful things.
I doubt it.
It seems like when people try to understand the "key factors which make a successful song/movie/book", and then try to apply it, you end up with some soulless terrible thing which everybody hates.
Stuff designed by committee to resemble something which was successful is usually dreck, and people can tell.
There will always be artists who have their own style and do their own new and cool things. The ones focusing on making "Fast Pop Song #5", or "Heartfelt Boyband Song #2" ... well, that's their problem.
And, honestly, if they produce based on ad revenue, they deserve what they get. As an active buyer of CDs, I don't find music through ads, I don't consume it in a medium which allows them a glimpse of how and when I play it.
I can say with 100% certainty not a single person has ever received a penny from ad revenue from me listening to music. And they never will.
All I know somewhere there is a computer system which records CD sales which sees the stuff I buy at the same time and says "don't know how to quantify that bizarre cross section", and then the music industry doesn't get a damned thing ever again. Not ad revenue, not analytics, not anything.
Honestly, I'd love some additional coaching and opportunity to try some of the more dynamic things they do.
Some of those challenges look hella tough, and are well outside what many people will ever get the chance to try.
I've been driving for almost 30 years and have never had an accident. But some of that stuff looks like it would be challenging for even decent drivers.
Are you a fucking asshole on purpose, or does someone need to hit you with a Volvo? Because you're just a screeching monkey on the internet at the moment.
Look, put your bullshit away and try to be a grown up. If you can't, then fuck the hell off.
If you have auto-park, auto-park sure as hell better include the "don't run over pedestrians" as standard with that.
If you don't have auto-park, there is no problem.
But when auto park is an option, and "don't kill pedestrians" is another option, that's just moronic. The Volvo spokesperson straight up said that's an additional option. Which means there exist configurations of this vehicle which will auto-park and run over pedestrians.
Now, please, go be an asshole elsewhere and learn how to fucking read.
And now what we need is criminal/financial penalties for companies who are so blindingly inept at security.
If your business model involves confidential personal information, and you are this incompetent, you have no business being in the business you're in.
This just screams someone was lazy, stupid, indifferent, or cheap ... possibly all of these things.
I can completely see insurance companies saying "hell no we're not paying".
When companies start having actual liability for being that terrible at security, they'll do something. Right now, they can mostly just say "wow, we wish we were sorry".
You know what: Until there are no human controls at all, everything is entirely driver error.
Because that's where the legal liability will be.
So, "driver incompetently shows off technology he didn't pay for but which should have been mandatory" is, in my mind, no different than "idiot crams car into reverse and drives over pedestrians".
As I said "until such time as Google (or whoever makes it) takes legal and financial responsibility for everything its car does (which they never will) ... then people should either carry a lot of extra insurance, or simply not buy one of these things."
Make no mistake about it, your fancy car is still your car, and you are still legally responsible for it. So if it kills someone, you still get to keep the criminal charges and the liability.
In which case you might as well drive the damned car yourself.
The problem is that it's going to take multiple deaths before people realize that these things aren't magic, and still have corner cases where they break down. And, the driver will be on the hook for those, no matter what anybody says.
Companies want to make (partly) autonomous vehicle activity, but the "don't kill people" component is a fucking upgrade? What asshole in marketing thought that was a good idea?
I keep saying, autonomous vehicles are all or nothing ... either you completely trust it, or you completely don't. There is zero middle ground.
Some half-assed measure of "well, it mostly works, but you need to watch out for pedestrians" or suddenly getting "hey, human, you'll die if you don't get us out of this mess in 3 seconds" basically mean this crap is a toy, and not ready to function in the real world.
So, until such time as Google (or whoever makes it) takes legal and financial responsibility for everything its car does (which they never will) ... then people should either carry a lot of extra insurance, or simply not buy one of these things.
Because when you kill someone, you can bet your ass the car company won't be stepping in to pay your legal bills. And since it's your car, you deserve what you got.
Self driving cars is technology's latest form of onanism. And I remain very skeptical they'll be safe or trustworthy for a very long time.
I'm just waiting for the first driver to be imprisoned because his autonomous car killed someone, and the criminal negligence falls to them.
Of course we did.
For how many decades was the transparency projector used in academia and other things?
And some of us also remember things with slide projectors where the audio went "bing" for some schmuck to advance the slide.
Power Point is bells and whistles on some pretty basic technology we've had for a very long time.
But, honestly ... if people wanted the Microsoft stuff, they'd have bought a Microsoft phone.
I find myself thinking ... why the hell would I want Microsoft anything on an Android or iOS device?
Is there a market of people tripping over themselves for this? Unless it was a corporate device and I had no choice, I see zero value in this for anybody who didn't buy a Microsoft product to begin with.
Oh, I don't know ... the steaming shitpile which is the state of security on consumer electronics bears repeating.
Because apparently it isn't going to go away any time soon.