Americans don't like capitalism. They prefer Cronyism. It's not about who makes the better product at the better price, it's about who better bribes politicians and and who is willing to install American back doors.
And interestingly enough, Germany has specifically stated that they aren't going to ban Huawei, but they ARE going to implement stricter security checks on ALL vendors.
So far Huawei has never been caught spying. The same can't be said for the US tech companies, so we'll see how that goes.
The Canadian flag wasn't adopted until the 1960s... so, no. They would have been under the British red ensign at the time.
Keep in mind when arguing with Americans that they don't believe anything ever happens in the world that they didn't solve. As far as they're concerned the war didn't start until they joined. Hollywood doesn't exactly help this view either when it frequently re-writes history to replace other nationalities with Americans in WWII films.
The question really becomes, how much power do you give the computer, before you decide that you're not really letting the pilot fly anyway and just remove them?
No. The cameras on Tesla vehicles have zero chance of ever getting to full self driving. No camera system without any redundancy can.
The issue is that any little piece of dirt can completely block the only camera and without an active driver there's nothing you can do about it. the ultrasonic sensors are too short range to be useful at all on the highway let alone for this purpose, Tesla vehicles still don't even have the most basic working blind spot detection due to their lack of corner radar and reliance on ultrasonic sensors that don't have enough range or work at high speed. cuz while their radar is good they insist on only having one of them going forward which isn't enough.
I'm not convinced that lidar is essential for self-driving but I am certain that the hardware suite on the Tesla vehicles is simply not enough.
One of the players in this debate has a long history of actually putting back doors in commercial products, and spying on everyone. The other player is Huawei.
Why would you have more trust in the one that has proof of wrongdoing than in the one that has the most eyes on it of any company in the history of mankind, and where none of those eyes have managed to turn up a single thing?
The worst part is Tesla never even gave it a serious try. They released a system based entirely on cameras, and non-redundant cameras at that, with only a single forward facing radar, and claimed they could make it Level 5.
Nobody with half a clue ever believed them because it didn't matter how good their software was, there was just no way that hardware suite could do what they claimed. (Not that this is new for Tesla, their original autopilot suite still doesn't do even a single thing that was claimed in the original release, and that's after more than 4 years of software updates)
I think L5 in a properly designed vehicle is still a decade or more away. I do however think that commercial L3 is just around the corner, and commercial L4 probably in the next few years.
That would be great, if even a single one of those manufacturers actually made a compelling electric car. But they don't. That means it's Tesla or nothing.
That said, the Model S is an amazing car, nothing better on the market today. Unfortunately it's sold by Tesla, no worse company in the marketplace today.
I drive a Tesla (Model S P85+), I live in Canada. My commute is 155 km of highway each way and I regularly do 2000 km road trips. I don't have the luxury of picking what weather I drive in.
The Tesla is the best car possible for my use case, there is nothing better on the market currently.
That said, Tesla as a company is the worst company I've ever had the misfortune of dealing with, and I will never again give them even a penny of my money. I just hope that I don't need to replace this car before some other actual competition appears in this space.
I have to both agree, and disagree at the same time.
Tesla makes the best vehicle on the market today. They also lie through their teeth about every aspect of it. If you expect a Tesla to be anything even remotely like what was promised, you'll be horribly disappointed. But if you try to find another car that can do what the Tesla can, you'll be equally disappointed.
I've always said that it's the best car ever made, by the worst company I've ever had the misfortune of dealing with.
I truly believe that once there's actual competition in the space (currently there's none, but I expect that to change significantly within the next 5 years) Tesla will either have to change their ways, or be in serious trouble. But right now, there's no competition, and they act like it.
I love my Model S. I will never again buy any product made or sold by Tesla, nor would I recommend them to anyone else either.
They got away with lying outright about the original autopilot without any consequences, why would this be different?
Go look at the "D" event video, not a single thing that Elon promises for the first generation of autopilot has been delivered.
I've always said that the best case scenario for "full self driving" was that it would fulfil the stated functionality for AP1. Seems even that part may turn out to be optimistic.
Am I missing something here? I remember Elon standing up and touting the Dragon's ability to land with thrusters on a launch pad. Did this capability evaporate before this trial? Or did they just not want to try too many things at the same time for this launch and plan that for a future trial? One of SpaceX's pillars of reusability has been avoiding getting everything soaked in salt water.
Oh look, you found a paper. Get back to me when you find actual programs spending real money to make a difference. These exist for many "male dominated" fields, but not the other way around.
Paramedicine is currently 40% female, and increasing fast as 60% of paramedic graduates are female. Nursing is 7% male and somewhat stagnant.
So yes, when comparing the 2, the gender difference in paramedicine is "slim".
The rest of your post confirms how ridiculous it is to put so much gender based hiring pressure out there to up the number of women in ems while ignoring the low number of men in nursing.
Your ignorance is the problem. You think female nurses are more desirable than male nurses, got any proof for that? or is it just your way of discriminating against men?
You also claim that domestic violence against men is taken seriously, yet near 100% of domestic violence shelters refuse to accept any men. So obviously that's being taken super seriously.
You can rationalize your discrimination all you want. But it's still discrimination.
No, what people ARE saying is that every high paying or desirable job must be AT LEAST 50% women, and low paying menial jobs don't need any women to apply.
If a job is already over 50% women, there is no incentive to correct that to allow more men, but if it's currently less than 50% women, and seen as a desirable job, all the stops must be pulled out to get more women in it.
I'm all for equal opportunity, but we passed that point a couple of decades ago. It didn't suit the agenda of all desirable jobs must be over 50% women, so now we go to equal outcome instead of equal opportunity, and THAT is where I have a problem.
No, You're stupid if you question all vaccines, or if you question the concept of vaccination, but you're not stupid to question any individual vaccine. Now you revert to being stupid again if after questioning it you're shown many many studies proving you wrong and still hold to it. But there's nothing stupid about questioning ANYTHING as long as you're willing to be proven wrong.
The whole idea of calling people stupid for asking questions is the problem, not the people wanting proof of the things they're told.
We passed equality of opportunity a very long time ago, it didn't get every high paying job to be greater than 50% female dominated (we ignore the high paying careers that are female dominated, and only focus on the ones that are male dominated), so it wasn't enough. Now we have to focus on "equality of outcome" which translates to active discrimination against white males.
Discrimination is discrimination. Just because it's against a group that used to be "in power" doesn't make it any less discriminatory.
The only way past this is to stop telling organizations what gender or ethnicity they must hire, stop asking everyone what their gender and ethnicity is (the only reason to ever do so is to discriminate) and let organizations do what they do best: Hire the person who is best suited to do the job. Businesses don't want to hire a lesser person just because of skin colour or genitals. Businesses are in it for the money, they don't care about gender or ethnicity unless forced to.
5G is the future, but there's just no way to take advantage of it in any meaningful way. Sure, it's faster, but I can't really use the existing LTE speed as I could theoretically blow through my data cap in just a couple of minutes, and even the largest available data caps in my country quite quickly. additionally, there's just nothing I would do on a phone that would need that kind of speed.
It's great that they're going that way, but it won't make me rush out and buy a new phone. What WOULD make me buy a new phone is if they had some innovative new feature, but that ship seems to have sailed as every phone in the last 5 years has fewer features than the one before it. (removal of IR ports, headphone jacks, replaceable batteries, HDMI output. Phone screens that claim to be larger, but are smaller due to ridiculous aspect ratios. Materials that are designed to make the phones more breakable). "upgrading" is now seen as a risk to see what you'll be forced to lose just to get a slightly faster processor and an up to date operating system and meanwhile the prices of phones are skyrocketing through the roof (the Note 9 is more than double the price of the note 4, yet has a smaller screen, no ir port, no replaceable battery, and an easily shattered super slippery glass back). I'm not yet convinced that "foldable" is the new feature that would do it for me though, it has potential, but I'm just not sold on it yet.
What phone manufacturers need to do if they want people to keep upgrading is to make the new phone feel like it's actually BETTER than the one they are getting rid of, not just newer.
Nurses are majority female, and there's no talk at all about encouraging more men to join that high paying profession. Paramedics are majority male (slim majority, not nearly the imbalance of nurses) and there's constant pressure to "fix" the situation.
There's never pressure to get more women in to menial or low paying jobs, and there's never pressure to get more men in to any job. There's also no pressure to get more men to win custody battles, or to believe men who have been victims of domestic violence or sexual assault. There's also a gigantic funding difference in research to cure diseases that hit mainly women (i.e. breast cancer) vs those that hit mainly men (i.e. prostate cancer).
Slashdot Mirror
Americans don't like capitalism. They prefer Cronyism. It's not about who makes the better product at the better price, it's about who better bribes politicians and and who is willing to install American back doors.
And interestingly enough, Germany has specifically stated that they aren't going to ban Huawei, but they ARE going to implement stricter security checks on ALL vendors.
So far Huawei has never been caught spying. The same can't be said for the US tech companies, so we'll see how that goes.
The Canadian flag wasn't adopted until the 1960s... so, no. They would have been under the British red ensign at the time.
Keep in mind when arguing with Americans that they don't believe anything ever happens in the world that they didn't solve. As far as they're concerned the war didn't start until they joined. Hollywood doesn't exactly help this view either when it frequently re-writes history to replace other nationalities with Americans in WWII films.
Arguably the tech has been available for some time now.
The question really becomes, how much power do you give the computer, before you decide that you're not really letting the pilot fly anyway and just remove them?
No. The cameras on Tesla vehicles have zero chance of ever getting to full self driving. No camera system without any redundancy can.
The issue is that any little piece of dirt can completely block the only camera and without an active driver there's nothing you can do about it. the ultrasonic sensors are too short range to be useful at all on the highway let alone for this purpose, Tesla vehicles still don't even have the most basic working blind spot detection due to their lack of corner radar and reliance on ultrasonic sensors that don't have enough range or work at high speed. cuz while their radar is good they insist on only having one of them going forward which isn't enough.
I'm not convinced that lidar is essential for self-driving but I am certain that the hardware suite on the Tesla vehicles is simply not enough.
Yeah, now we can subscribe to 15 different streaming services that each have 1 title we're interested in. So much better than cable....
One of the players in this debate has a long history of actually putting back doors in commercial products, and spying on everyone. The other player is Huawei.
Why would you have more trust in the one that has proof of wrongdoing than in the one that has the most eyes on it of any company in the history of mankind, and where none of those eyes have managed to turn up a single thing?
The worst part is Tesla never even gave it a serious try. They released a system based entirely on cameras, and non-redundant cameras at that, with only a single forward facing radar, and claimed they could make it Level 5.
Nobody with half a clue ever believed them because it didn't matter how good their software was, there was just no way that hardware suite could do what they claimed. (Not that this is new for Tesla, their original autopilot suite still doesn't do even a single thing that was claimed in the original release, and that's after more than 4 years of software updates)
I think L5 in a properly designed vehicle is still a decade or more away. I do however think that commercial L3 is just around the corner, and commercial L4 probably in the next few years.
That would be great, if even a single one of those manufacturers actually made a compelling electric car. But they don't. That means it's Tesla or nothing.
That said, the Model S is an amazing car, nothing better on the market today. Unfortunately it's sold by Tesla, no worse company in the marketplace today.
You're mixing up the car and the company. The car is the best vehicle I've ever driven. The company is the worst company I've ever dealt with.
I drive a Tesla (Model S P85+), I live in Canada. My commute is 155 km of highway each way and I regularly do 2000 km road trips. I don't have the luxury of picking what weather I drive in.
The Tesla is the best car possible for my use case, there is nothing better on the market currently.
That said, Tesla as a company is the worst company I've ever had the misfortune of dealing with, and I will never again give them even a penny of my money. I just hope that I don't need to replace this car before some other actual competition appears in this space.
I have to both agree, and disagree at the same time.
Tesla makes the best vehicle on the market today. They also lie through their teeth about every aspect of it. If you expect a Tesla to be anything even remotely like what was promised, you'll be horribly disappointed. But if you try to find another car that can do what the Tesla can, you'll be equally disappointed.
I've always said that it's the best car ever made, by the worst company I've ever had the misfortune of dealing with.
I truly believe that once there's actual competition in the space (currently there's none, but I expect that to change significantly within the next 5 years) Tesla will either have to change their ways, or be in serious trouble. But right now, there's no competition, and they act like it.
I love my Model S. I will never again buy any product made or sold by Tesla, nor would I recommend them to anyone else either.
So far they've wrote the marketing spiel but not bothered with the specs, or the software. or the hardware for that matter.
They got away with lying outright about the original autopilot without any consequences, why would this be different?
Go look at the "D" event video, not a single thing that Elon promises for the first generation of autopilot has been delivered.
I've always said that the best case scenario for "full self driving" was that it would fulfil the stated functionality for AP1. Seems even that part may turn out to be optimistic.
Am I missing something here? I remember Elon standing up and touting the Dragon's ability to land with thrusters on a launch pad. Did this capability evaporate before this trial? Or did they just not want to try too many things at the same time for this launch and plan that for a future trial? One of SpaceX's pillars of reusability has been avoiding getting everything soaked in salt water.
Oh look, you found a paper. Get back to me when you find actual programs spending real money to make a difference. These exist for many "male dominated" fields, but not the other way around.
Paramedicine is currently 40% female, and increasing fast as 60% of paramedic graduates are female.
Nursing is 7% male and somewhat stagnant.
So yes, when comparing the 2, the gender difference in paramedicine is "slim".
The rest of your post confirms how ridiculous it is to put so much gender based hiring pressure out there to up the number of women in ems while ignoring the low number of men in nursing.
Your ignorance is the problem. You think female nurses are more desirable than male nurses, got any proof for that? or is it just your way of discriminating against men?
You also claim that domestic violence against men is taken seriously, yet near 100% of domestic violence shelters refuse to accept any men. So obviously that's being taken super seriously.
You can rationalize your discrimination all you want. But it's still discrimination.
A problem with zero political appetite for resolution.
No, what people ARE saying is that every high paying or desirable job must be AT LEAST 50% women, and low paying menial jobs don't need any women to apply.
If a job is already over 50% women, there is no incentive to correct that to allow more men, but if it's currently less than 50% women, and seen as a desirable job, all the stops must be pulled out to get more women in it.
I'm all for equal opportunity, but we passed that point a couple of decades ago. It didn't suit the agenda of all desirable jobs must be over 50% women, so now we go to equal outcome instead of equal opportunity, and THAT is where I have a problem.
No, You're stupid if you question all vaccines, or if you question the concept of vaccination, but you're not stupid to question any individual vaccine. Now you revert to being stupid again if after questioning it you're shown many many studies proving you wrong and still hold to it. But there's nothing stupid about questioning ANYTHING as long as you're willing to be proven wrong.
The whole idea of calling people stupid for asking questions is the problem, not the people wanting proof of the things they're told.
We passed equality of opportunity a very long time ago, it didn't get every high paying job to be greater than 50% female dominated (we ignore the high paying careers that are female dominated, and only focus on the ones that are male dominated), so it wasn't enough. Now we have to focus on "equality of outcome" which translates to active discrimination against white males.
Discrimination is discrimination. Just because it's against a group that used to be "in power" doesn't make it any less discriminatory.
The only way past this is to stop telling organizations what gender or ethnicity they must hire, stop asking everyone what their gender and ethnicity is (the only reason to ever do so is to discriminate) and let organizations do what they do best: Hire the person who is best suited to do the job. Businesses don't want to hire a lesser person just because of skin colour or genitals. Businesses are in it for the money, they don't care about gender or ethnicity unless forced to.
5G is the future, but there's just no way to take advantage of it in any meaningful way. Sure, it's faster, but I can't really use the existing LTE speed as I could theoretically blow through my data cap in just a couple of minutes, and even the largest available data caps in my country quite quickly. additionally, there's just nothing I would do on a phone that would need that kind of speed.
It's great that they're going that way, but it won't make me rush out and buy a new phone. What WOULD make me buy a new phone is if they had some innovative new feature, but that ship seems to have sailed as every phone in the last 5 years has fewer features than the one before it. (removal of IR ports, headphone jacks, replaceable batteries, HDMI output. Phone screens that claim to be larger, but are smaller due to ridiculous aspect ratios. Materials that are designed to make the phones more breakable). "upgrading" is now seen as a risk to see what you'll be forced to lose just to get a slightly faster processor and an up to date operating system and meanwhile the prices of phones are skyrocketing through the roof (the Note 9 is more than double the price of the note 4, yet has a smaller screen, no ir port, no replaceable battery, and an easily shattered super slippery glass back). I'm not yet convinced that "foldable" is the new feature that would do it for me though, it has potential, but I'm just not sold on it yet.
What phone manufacturers need to do if they want people to keep upgrading is to make the new phone feel like it's actually BETTER than the one they are getting rid of, not just newer.
Nurses are majority female, and there's no talk at all about encouraging more men to join that high paying profession.
Paramedics are majority male (slim majority, not nearly the imbalance of nurses) and there's constant pressure to "fix" the situation.
There's never pressure to get more women in to menial or low paying jobs, and there's never pressure to get more men in to any job. There's also no pressure to get more men to win custody battles, or to believe men who have been victims of domestic violence or sexual assault. There's also a gigantic funding difference in research to cure diseases that hit mainly women (i.e. breast cancer) vs those that hit mainly men (i.e. prostate cancer).