However the real question with Self driving cars is if their travel itinerary will be more optimized. With the current ride/sharing/taxi in terms of congestion, is the fact there are people driving around, awaiting a customer. So these cars are just driving around with no place to go, causing the congestion. However with a Autonomous fleet, they can be parked outside of the City, and moved into production, based on more data. Because a car is patient, while a driver isn't.
It might be more optimized, but OTOH I might be perfectly willing to bear an hour of congested commute if I can kick back and do some work or watch a movie, or eat my breakfast and shave (not simultaneously of course)
self driving cars will do the same in fleet mode where they park in remote holding areas.
I've talked about this before, Autonomous vehicle tech could significantly increase the number of vehicles on the road. They create new uses for cars, they enable more people to 'drive' by themselves. Car sharing may increaes but those vehicles will spend more time the road, including possibly time with nobody in the car.
Not only might they draw people off buses and trains, but also off of planes. I'd be happy to sleep overnight in my car as it travels long distances.
As a side note, its kind of funny to think that those crappy cab companies may have had some unintended benefit.
Math isn't for everyone. We have a math requirement.
English isn't for everyone. We have an English requirement.
Government, biology, physics, chemistry, foreign languages, etc aren't for everyone either. But it's a requirement of HS to give people exposure to them.
Mechanics isn't for everyone, we don't have a mechanics requirement.
Robotics isn't for everyone, we don't have a robotics requirement.
Cosmetics isn't for everyone, we don't have a cosmetics requirement.
Journalism isn't for everyone, we don't have a journalism requirement
Foreign languages are not required. Exposure vs. required are two different things.
Exactly. I've watched all the 'old movies' i care to have watched on NF, which wasn't really a grand selection to begin with. I am happy to pay what I do for the new content I get.
Of course we can never really know the thought process of the artist. But there inevitably are going to be some coincidental shape matches with paint-over. There seems to be a underlying human need to assign deeper meaning or make associations of intent, etc. Often an artist did something because , well, he just felt like it at the time.
Painting over a crappy painting doesn't mean it was a foundation for the final painting. Paint-overs were common as canvas wasn't exactly cheap and easy to get.
You understatement the gullibility of the uneducateds.
And if you understand their gullibility, common sense might tell you these relatively few tweets were not likely to change the minds of people who are getting orders of magnitude more tweets, just as misleading, from domestic sources.
... but if I did, I would quit. This is over the top. It feels more like a blanket list of vague infractions to have on hand so that they can rid of anyone they feel like.
The relevant metric is how much influence these tweets had.
Application of common sense tells us very little if any. Do you actually believe someone changed their vote because they read one of these tweets among the tons of other tweets out there?
I think we need to address Russian meddling, but its not like its made any difference to this point.
Fair point, but I'm pretty sure this isn't the case at Google. It's one of those Mike Robbins "bring your whole self to work" places, and Google has even hosted political candidates. And certainly to the extent that he was discussing Google's corporate training and corporate culture, that's very much protected under most sane labour laws.
Fair point as well, but just because you include corporate training and culture mentions in the memo doesn't get you off the hook if you are disruptive.
Please... The obvious point is that it didn't influence shit.
Very true. For comparison, there were 3.5 Millions Tweets generated in a couple hours during the 2012 VP debate between Biden and Ryan, a debate that didn't mean squat.
200K tweets over a few years might as well be zero when considering the total number of tweets generated of this period of time. Over 500 million tweets are generated per day.
If he had just made the political points and Google fired him, he would have had an excellent case.
Not if there were clear business expectations that using a company platform for expressing personal political views is unacceptable. It is perfectly legal for a company to tell employees that they are not to use company resources for political expression. That can be done on personal time with personal resources, and when done on personal time and with personal resources, the company clearly cannot respond in any manner, and Google would certainly not have cared.
protecting political speech. I was really expecting this to fall under those laws..
He was never prevented from making his political speech, and most importantly he is not being prosecuted for it. He was free to make his views known. He's not going to jail and there was never any government action against him.
Nothing shady on Google's part. They are very clear that this was an inappropriate use of company communication tools, and a disruption of the business. Many people, including myself, agree, regardless of his political views. The courts agree as well. This case is crystal clear and closed.
If you can be punished for doing something, then you are not free to do it.
You are perfectly free to do it, and then you will receive your expected consequence. In the US legal frame, that consequence will not be criminal prosecution. Didn't you learn that in grade school?
Incurring a penalty is the polar opposite of being free to do something.
You are free to go sunbathing, you might get a sunburn.
If you can be punished for doing something, then you are not free to do it.
You are perfectly free to do it, and then you will receive your expected consequence. In the US legal frame, that consequence will not be criminal prosecution. Didn't you learn that in grade school?
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
Unfortunately, no matter how many times you say it, there are a trove of idiots that just don't get it. Freedom of speech allows you to express yourself without criminal prosecution, but that's about it.
Slashdot Mirror
However the real question with Self driving cars is if their travel itinerary will be more optimized. With the current ride/sharing/taxi in terms of congestion, is the fact there are people driving around, awaiting a customer. So these cars are just driving around with no place to go, causing the congestion. However with a Autonomous fleet, they can be parked outside of the City, and moved into production, based on more data. Because a car is patient, while a driver isn't.
It might be more optimized, but OTOH I might be perfectly willing to bear an hour of congested commute if I can kick back and do some work or watch a movie, or eat my breakfast and shave (not simultaneously of course)
self driving cars will do the same in fleet mode where they park in remote holding areas.
I've talked about this before, Autonomous vehicle tech could significantly increase the number of vehicles on the road. They create new uses for cars, they enable more people to 'drive' by themselves. Car sharing may increaes but those vehicles will spend more time the road, including possibly time with nobody in the car.
Not only might they draw people off buses and trains, but also off of planes. I'd be happy to sleep overnight in my car as it travels long distances.
As a side note, its kind of funny to think that those crappy cab companies may have had some unintended benefit.
Math isn't for everyone. We have a math requirement.
English isn't for everyone. We have an English requirement.
Government, biology, physics, chemistry, foreign languages, etc aren't for everyone either. But it's a requirement of HS to give people exposure to them.
Mechanics isn't for everyone, we don't have a mechanics requirement.
Robotics isn't for everyone, we don't have a robotics requirement.
Cosmetics isn't for everyone, we don't have a cosmetics requirement.
Journalism isn't for everyone, we don't have a journalism requirement
Foreign languages are not required. Exposure vs. required are two different things.
meant to say 'required' not 'dedicated'
Teaching children how to write a program – Software Development – would be far better IMO, and it's a little more specific than "computer skillz".
Then if that piques their curiosity––
That can easily be accomplished, and generally is already, without a dedicated computer science .
There is a difference between Compute Science and computer skills. All students should have computer skills, but not all need computer science.
This is the slickest CC to date!
Exactly. I've watched all the 'old movies' i care to have watched on NF, which wasn't really a grand selection to begin with. I am happy to pay what I do for the new content I get.
can't the tech giants at least put a BASIC on every phone/tablet/laptop for kids?
If a kid can't load a free BASIC compiler app...........then.... .well... I don't really know.
Of course we can never really know the thought process of the artist. But there inevitably are going to be some coincidental shape matches with paint-over. There seems to be a underlying human need to assign deeper meaning or make associations of intent, etc. Often an artist did something because , well, he just felt like it at the time.
Painting over a crappy painting doesn't mean it was a foundation for the final painting. Paint-overs were common as canvas wasn't exactly cheap and easy to get.
You understatement the gullibility of the uneducateds.
And if you understand their gullibility, common sense might tell you these relatively few tweets were not likely to change the minds of people who are getting orders of magnitude more tweets, just as misleading, from domestic sources.
... but if I did, I would quit. This is over the top. It feels more like a blanket list of vague infractions to have on hand so that they can rid of anyone they feel like.
sounds like this 'rubbed you' the wrong way.
The relevant metric is how much influence these tweets had.
Application of common sense tells us very little if any. Do you actually believe someone changed their vote because they read one of these tweets among the tons of other tweets out there?
I think we need to address Russian meddling, but its not like its made any difference to this point.
Also, had he just sent the memo to training and/or the appropriate corporate management, it might have gone better for all.
Fair point, but I'm pretty sure this isn't the case at Google. It's one of those Mike Robbins "bring your whole self to work" places, and Google has even hosted political candidates. And certainly to the extent that he was discussing Google's corporate training and corporate culture, that's very much protected under most sane labour laws.
Fair point as well, but just because you include corporate training and culture mentions in the memo doesn't get you off the hook if you are disruptive.
Please... The obvious point is that it didn't influence shit.
Very true. For comparison, there were 3.5 Millions Tweets generated in a couple hours during the 2012 VP debate between Biden and Ryan, a debate that didn't mean squat.
200K tweets over a few years might as well be zero when considering the total number of tweets generated of this period of time. Over 500 million tweets are generated per day.
If he had just made the political points and Google fired him, he would have had an excellent case.
Not if there were clear business expectations that using a company platform for expressing personal political views is unacceptable. It is perfectly legal for a company to tell employees that they are not to use company resources for political expression. That can be done on personal time with personal resources, and when done on personal time and with personal resources, the company clearly cannot respond in any manner, and Google would certainly not have cared.
protecting political speech. I was really expecting this to fall under those laws. .
He was never prevented from making his political speech, and most importantly he is not being prosecuted for it. He was free to make his views known. He's not going to jail and there was never any government action against him. Nothing shady on Google's part. They are very clear that this was an inappropriate use of company communication tools, and a disruption of the business. Many people, including myself, agree, regardless of his political views. The courts agree as well. This case is crystal clear and closed.
If you can be punished for doing something, then you are not free to do it.
You are perfectly free to do it, and then you will receive your expected consequence. In the US legal frame, that consequence will not be criminal prosecution. Didn't you learn that in grade school?
Incurring a penalty is the polar opposite of being free to do something.
You are free to go sunbathing, you might get a sunburn.
If you can be punished for doing something, then you are not free to do it.
You are perfectly free to do it, and then you will receive your expected consequence. In the US legal frame, that consequence will not be criminal prosecution. Didn't you learn that in grade school?
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
Unfortunately, no matter how many times you say it, there are a trove of idiots that just don't get it. Freedom of speech allows you to express yourself without criminal prosecution, but that's about it.
Not sure what you are talking about. Policy backed up by jokes? Makes no sense.
Whatever turns you on, getting mad a draft jokes if that's your bowl of soup.
Getting upset about policy is fine. Fretting over draft jokes is pathetic.