We are not talking 4,000 here. We are talking 4,000,000,000 times
Sorry, my bad. You did write it properly in your previous message, but I did misread it (too much activity in Slashdot today:)). But this doesn't change much my point and still let unanswered my question. When and why happens the transition from bigger and brighter to no mass, no light and lots of weird things? Without forgetting the very likely huge error in the calculations (because of the distance, the lack of information, a theories created for completely different conditions, etc.).
It is very interesting that you deem the science to be very weak, yet you admit to not having very limited scientific training.
You seem very bad at understanding/guessing. I have never and will ever say anything on the lines of "deem the science to be very weak", I am completely convinced by the scientific method and, by default and in principle, I always trust in what science as a whole says. I do have a very relevant knowledge in physics (not in this specific theory; well... actually I also have a pretty good knowledge about it too, but let's say that it isn't too compatible with the one which you and others here have:)) and that's why I can critically analyse something, rather than blindly trusting in its validity. Even in the fields where my knowledge is more limited (e.g., biology), I wouldn't ever accept absolute truths or people criticising me for doing something like asking/wanting to go further/understand better and make others understand, basically what defines science (as opposed to religion or even fanaticism).
Because stellar physics tells us that there are limits to stellar sizes and brightnesses.
Why? Who told you so, monsignor, Archangel Gabriel? LOL. Sorry, but I told you before (pretty sure that you are the same AC): not interested in your abstract intentions.
The reason for certain "beforehand knowledge" is previously settled science.
No. You don't get it. Science (and pretty much everything else) is usually working over previous work, this is evident. But that doesn't describe the scientific method, this is just being practical, sensible and efficient. The scientific method is about wondering, asking and finding answers. Asking every single detail at every point would be 100% compatible with the scientific method, but tremendously inefficient. What is completely against the scientific method is not being able/wanting to answer/understand via relying on statements on the lines of "it is settle science" (another version of "god told me so in a dream").
The best way to confirm a black hole is by looking at the red/blue shift of the orbiting material. This allows you to calculate orbital speed, and that tells you about mass and radius.
OK. As commented above, I get all that. What I don't get is the point where you perform the transition from star/what we know/what every theory is about to the black hole fantasy world. Apparently, you do that when the calculations conclude that the center of a galaxy is 4k times the mass of our sun. My question is: why can't it be a star which is 4k times (or any other size) the size of our sun? Why can't it be a star 4k brighter than our sun, why it has to become that matter-less, light-/time-trapping elucubration basing all sorts of apocalyptic-like assumptions whose scientific foundation seems very weak to me?
This is a certainly bright galaxy, true. And that seems to reinforce what looks like a pretty sensible interpretation, as explained in my previous reply: what if there is a star there which is 4k times our sun (or 1k by assuming some errors or even 1M, isn't that precisely what the universe is about: unmanageably big and unkown)? You see more light, your calculations output more mass and your conclusion is that it isn't a bigger, brighter star, but something else?
Rather than reasonably scaling up (I am not precisely a scaling-it-up fan, but in this case it does seem applicable:)) your conclusions and assuming that something 4000 times more massive is likely to be much more brighter and to have a much stronger gravitational force, you move to "black hole" (the end and beginning of everything, where time exist and not exist, where your dreams become true, etc.)? Why? And why assuming a black or light-less or matter-less center rather than the much more logical tremendously bright and massive one? Because a century-old theory (about which I will better not talk) told you so? It doesn't sound too scientific to me.
From the movement of stars in the center of M87 you can calculate the mass of the center. The movement you can tell from the Doppler effect of their light. If they are moving to us, it is slightly shifted to the blue. If they move away from us, the light is redshifted. That's how you can tell the speed of the stars when circling the galactic center. From the distance to the center, you can tell the orbits. With the orbits and the speed, you know how much mass they are circling, because you can calculate the force that keeps them on their orbits. And when you get a mass of at least 4 billion times the mass of the Sun, you gotta ask which object has so much mass, especially if you don't see the light equivalent of 4 billion stars in the galaxy's center.
Thanks. Much better. So, you are basically applying the relativity theory of gravity to very far objects and, when finding clearly wrong results (or, at least, as per our experience and expectations), you come up with that black hole idea. Rather than, for example, assuming a limited (or even completely erroneous) theory which, on the other hand, seems the most sensible proceeding when dealing with so hugely complex events. I don't know... why expecting the same (tremendously simplistic) rules which work in our system to be applicable to any other galaxy and group of bodies? Anyway... I don't want to come into all this, just to understand this black-hole measuring situation, for what your comments are being very helpful. Thanks again.
As far as you seem to have a very good knowledge about all this, I hope that you don't mind if I keep asking some doubts. For example, the aforementioned basic theory seems reasonably sound but, logically, within certain limits. So, you perform the basic calculations and apply the basic assumptions (e.g., planets orbiting certain central start) and you get unreasonable results. How are you dismissing what, a priori, seems the most logical explanation of having a very big, massive central body? 4000 times our sun? And? Why should that be considered impossible when talking about the universe? Without forgetting the fact that we are relying on a (far from perfect) set of calculations and assumptions, and that we might not even be getting all the information. Because the alternative is moving to the complete unknown (almost arbitrary, if you ask my opinion): a very big star is fully compatible with all our remaining knowledge, but assuming a crazily different phenomenon which can only exist in our imagination seems a pretty big leap, mainly for science. What if the calculations determined that there is a mass of 100 times our sun, or 500? What is the threshold to move to the "let's assume that it is black hole"?
I see another issue when performing the aforementioned transition from very big star to black hole. We more or less know and understand the behaviour of stars/planets, almost regardless of its size. We don't know much about a black hole, but as I understand our guesses are pretty apocalyptic. So, how could the given planets continue orbiting under more or less the same rules than are applicable to a star (= gravity theory of relativity) when talking about a black hole? Shouldn't all of them be immediately suck into the black hole? Or, at least, should the situation become so crazily different than all the performed calculations wouldn't really make any sense? Let's imagine that, at t0, you calculate the mass in the center of the galaxy and come to certain value. If now, in t1, you conclude that that central body isn't a star, but a black hole because you got 4000 times the mass of the sun, how could the calculations made in t0 (precisely driving you to the current conclusion) make any sense? You are assuming that a black and a star are extremely different, but you are determining the size of the black hole (even knowing that it is such a thing) by relying on theories only applicable and validated (well...) to stars. Furthermore, you see that the orbiting planets continue behaving as they would do in case of being a (very big) star, so why can you come to all these conclusions of blacks holes being so tremendously different to big stars?
Because that is how the scientific method works and keeps improving our understanding of the Universe.
?! I am asking about the reasons for certain beforehand knowledge (-> precisely the way in which the scientific method works, asking questions to understand everything rather than blindly accepting absolute truths) and your answer is that this is how the scientific method works?! So, you are taking whatever starting point you are being given (i.e., "this galaxy has a black hole in it. Accept it and don't ask any questions!"), blindly following it and you think that this is what the scientific method is about?! Sorry, but I can't continue reading your reply after that.
You should better focus on dealing with people sharing your views, rather than starting clearly unwelcome discussions. Why unnecessarily creating problems? I have been very clear since the start about my expectations: zero interest in abstract chatting.
Thanks for the detailed answer. But it triggers still more questions:
We knew beforehand that M87
It seems to me that there is lots of beforehand issues here and I see a problem with that. This doesn't seem too scientific. Why could you know that there was a black hole there? And even once you knew it what were you looking for? You are talking about energy measurements, but of what and what values are you getting? What is black hole and what is not? We are in the space, there is a planet here, some asteroids over there and then the black hole. You determine what is what by taking energy measurements, but of what? How? What tells what is what? Even better: if you apply that exact methodology in a known-place (e.g., around Earth) are you getting everything right too? (planets and no black holes). Or, in other words, is the beforehand premise of being around a black hole required?
weeding out data, that has errors, took so long
What kind of errors? How can you correct them? And much more important: how are you making sure that the corrections are not actually introducing real errors (turning the actual reality into the one which you want to see)? I don't know what kind of energy measurements you are taking, but how could them be erroneous? Too far away perhaps? A methodology/expectations brought to the limit perhaps? Still you haven't answered my first question about how you know that what appears to be a black hole to the instruments isn't really a limitation of the device capabilities. Could you please elaborate more about how are you are actually recognising the black hole part/measuring energies/associated them with matter/no matter? Are there some minimum/maximum thresholds? Negative/null values perhaps?
Storing the raw data for the image was a feat itself -- tiny portions of data spread across five petabytes stored on multiple hard drives
the development of the algorithm that imaged the black hole
each pointed at the black hole and gathering data at different times. The data scientists then pieced this information together and used an algorithm to fill in the blanks and generate a likely image of the black hole
Let's imagine a very simplistic scenario as starting point. We have a set of 2D points drawing a square (0,0), (1,0), (1,1), (0,1). The points represent matter (in whatever way: via mass, forces, behaviour of light, etc.) and the square center the black hole. You can convert that simplistic drawing into an as big as required one by accumulating more data points around the square. Let's assume that you have now 1 million points or 1 billion or 100 billions of billions, but not a single point in the central part, where the black hole is supposed to be.
Honestly, my knowledge about relativity, black holes and similar is pretty limited, so please correct me if I am wrong here or at any other point. In any case, please keep the discussion at a level where it is fully compatible with generally-applicable physics, maths and validatable statements. I am not particularly interested in the abstract theoretical, philosophical, similar aspects.
By assuming that the aforementioned ideas are right, I have various doubts:
1. How are they (not) getting data points? How can they find the place where a black hole exists? How do you measure matter (in the space) and absence of it? Or perhaps it is through force/gravity, interaction between bodies? Or the way in which light interact with objects? What is translated into the 0s and 1s, what makes something being a data point or part of the hollowed nothingness?
2. How is supposed to work this approach of using various devices located in different places? This seems a tremendously problematic, error-prone, difficult-to-coordinate/validate/fix methodology. Who and how is confirming the validity of each action/collection? How is it accounting for the fact that this black hole (or any other one, I guess) is extremely far away from us? So far away that there is a little chance to confirm/validate almost anything, that the actual applicability of virtually any assumption might be dubious. If your devices only find black holes in extremely far away places, wouldn't it make some sense to think that the absence of data might be associated with the limited capability of the devices? Or, in other words, how can anyone be sure that a device delivering a nonexistent/negative/erroneous measurement (a basic requisite to find a black hole, right?) is undoubtedly indicating the presence of something?
3. Why taking so long and collecting so much information when the black hole was already located? What is that algorithm exactly doing that couldn't have been easily done before? As shown in my simplistic example, once you locate the big deal here (the beyond-imaginable hollow where everything and nothing is possible), all the surroundings seem pretty irrelevant. Collecting 1 or 1M data points seems quite trivial, exactly the same than generating a picture from those data points. Even if you are representing interactions/forces/attractions because all that has to be already reflected in the collected information. Is perhaps that algorithm doing something else rather than just generating a picture associated with a set of descriptive enough data points? In that case, what is it doing exactly?
I find it pretty curious the huge attention that these issues (e.g., when gravitational waves were firstly "found") get; way beyond what other news in virtually any other scientific or non-scientific field get! I just mean full coverage in all the media worldwide, but also in popular culture, internet... everywhere! People with virtually no scientific/technical/physics knowledge, not even truly understanding what is the actual point of this "discovery" (or the real validity/applicability of the underlying theory) sharing their tremendous joy about it! They behave as if we, as species, have made a huge accomplishment! Personally, I don't quite understand all the passion which things like new rockets or going to Mars provoke in some people, but at least I find that much closer and relevant for different reasons (but the associated attention is orders of magnitude lower!).
It reminds me behaviours traditionally linked to deep faith/religion. People getting very happy with stains on the wall looking like Virgin Mary because of implicitly proving that their whole faith is fully validated! For example, if I had the theory that 2+2 is 5 and, for that reason, tomorrow it will rain. Should my followers start blindly defending that 2+2 is 5 because it did actually rain?! NO. Even by assuming that the subsequent event actually and spontaneously happened (I didn't see any weather forecast), that wouldn't automatically validate any starting premise which I proposed. Even if that thing (i.e., nice looking pic really telling nothing) was actually representing even a remotely-related-to-the-theory version of what a black hole is supposed to be (an ironically impossible to be seen/experienced/interacted with/witnessed phenomenon), it wouldn't automatically validate any theory, much less when talking about something so unmanageably huge and comprehensive (expected to have overall applicability!!).
So, here you have the main steps to validate any theory. Firstly, look at the theory itself and make sure that it is completely coherent (with itself and with all what surrounds it, physics/mathematics in this case). Then, make sure that the empirical measurements are reliable (are you sure that all these data points which a very complex system collected from a veeeeeeeeery far location are OK, and that the subsequent model/interpretation/pic accurately describes what they represent?). And finally, confirm that those measurements are really related to the given theory (is this data set really describing a phenomenon which is similar enough to what the theory assumed that should exist?). Have you done all that? Then, you could definitively state that the theory is confirmed (at least, one part of it). Are you just looking at a picture which someone (better: a surprisingly big number of someones) told you that shows what, by definition, can't be shown and that this fact alone proves something? Well... you are free to be happy and to believe in whatever you want, but you shouldn't say that this is a (scientific, reliable, even logical) proof of anything. It is a picture really showing nothing, really proving nothing and whose whole value is based on the assumption that a huge number of people/interests and a tremendously complex system, precisely built to come to that conclusion ("after spending billions, we have discovered that we were wrong and all this has been a tremendous waste of time/resources" doesn't sound like a too probable outcome here, right?), have done everything right and built a surprisingly accurate, descriptive and easy-to-understand-for-everyone version of a very complex reality.
The line between satire and reality is getting finer every day! Hopefully, good quality will continue to be appreciated and Silicon Valley will get back on track.
Yesterday, one of the tags of this post was "troll" (now replaced with "heckyeah"), which I found pretty descriptive of the ideas in the linked article and some online behaviours which I truly fail to understand.
Yesterday, I started to write a post about one of the sentences in the summary, and then about a different one and, finally, decided to not post anything. For what? All seemed pretty evident for reasonable people and those really needing some clarifications wouldn't care about them anyway. I am still here writing this post though.
Just to be clear (II): most of those mistakes have been about expecting too much from people ('s knowledge, understanding capabilities, dignity), the real-world applicability of fairness, etc. I have many defects, but lying or being too egoist/greedy or having unmotivated prejudices (much less based on so irrelevant-to-me issues like money or social status) have never been some of those. I know that lying isn't worthy, because of having seen the consequences in other people and enjoyed the benefits of honesty myself.
After quickly skimming through the corresponding paper, it is clear that the detected problem has nothing to do with what is usually understood as "backdoor". Apparently, the researchers are complaining about certain parts of the implementation of an encryption algorithm not being as reliable as they should theoretically be. Here you have a descriptive quote:
In summary: the implementation does not provide a proof, and the verifier cannot check, that the important assumption of discrete log hardness made by Bayer and Groth is valid here. It is possible for a malicious authority to generate the perfectly random G1,G2,...in a way that, at the same time, gives it a trapdoor that falsifies an assumption that is central to the security of the Bayer-Groth mixnet construction.
In other words, the reported problem could only be exploited by directly affecting the given application/code. More specifically, certain (assumed-to-be) random numbers would have to be replaced (+ wrong results introduced). The critic is that, if that happened, the given encryption algorithm wouldn't know about that alteration, unlikely what should theoretically occur.
So, the researchers found a way to theoretically affect a cryptographic algorithm in a way which, under ideal circumstances, shouldn't happen. This is what they meant with backdoor: possibility to modify the flow of information against the original intention of the program. Is that bad, should it be fixed, etc.? Sure. In fact, the main point here is precisely to not allow any unmonitored modification of precisely those results. On the other hand, the reference to a "critical backdoor" seems to imply a completely different thing. To not mention the fact that all this is a bit too theoretical and uncontrollable (even by assuming that I have access to the application, how could I get X more votes for party Y?).
It would be nice if I could get lots of money/advantages suddenly and for no reason (= what rich people gets), but how could I justify it to myself
Just to be clear: I did get lots of advantages for no reason, at least in comparison with many other people. But you have to draw the line somewhere. My line is having a reasonably comfortable life as per your country's standards and not belonging to elites or being unfairly preferred in a systematic manner. For example, in my country the public university education is pretty cheap (+ I got scholarships) and relatively good. So, most of people in my country could have got what I did and more if they wanted. I am very grateful for my somehow privileged position in the world and think that most of people should too (very few cases where there isn't someone whose situation is much worse than yours). My previous post was about the extraordinarily rich people, the 1% and above, those to which rules aren't always applicable for reasons like greed, the context where the cheaters mentioned in this article could be considered not too rich.
All my life I was taught to be good. To not steal, not cheat, to not lie.
There is a reason for that: these are the ideal behaviours in most of the cases. Some liars might get away with it, but always at certain cost, and others will get caught and lose much more. There are many different ways to pay that cost: it might be ignorance/living in a bubble/not having really seen or experienced much, being afraid of yourself/getting caught, your whole life permanently depending on someone's else arbitrary decisions and/or pure chance, etc. Additionally, just the fact that our society is systematically appraising certain values (nobody likes cheaters, not even cheaters themselves) represents a relevant fulfillment and self-esteem boost for people behaving in that way.
I understand that there is a lot of hypocrisy and that having certain feelings is relatively common. But I also think that they are provoked by a lack of proper understanding. For example, you are complaining about realising that liars are getting what you want and are also expecting your behaviour to be somehow appraisable. Why? Are you willing to pay the price to get what you want? Go for it! Lie, be dishonest and enjoy the advantages and disadvantages of your actions. Too late for you? Teach that to your family, friends, etc. Try to build an empire over lies for your heirs to eventually be wealthy (you could have the nicest tomb in the whole cemetery,!). Accept your previous error and change your behaviour! Actually trying something is the best way to know for sure if you like it or not.
Even though I haven't ever had much money or influence or power or anything really, I think that I have experienced and learnt quite a few things from many people. I have made lots of mistakes in my life, in fact a big part of my learning has been eminently based on my own errors. It has taken me quite long to find what I truly consider my place, to be sure about what I want now and in the long term. Curiously, I haven't accomplished yet most of my goals. I am only sure about the path and direction to follow. When I read about millions of $ being unmotivatedly wasted, unknowledgeable people making stupid decisions or unfair actions of any type, I do complain, try to change things and all that. But I certainly don't feel envy. I rarely think about these people but, when I do, all what I feel is pity. I imagine myself, with my current knowledge and expectations, in a bubble of hypocrisy, dishonesty, fear, and I feel like puking.
It would be nice if I could get lots of money/advantages suddenly and for no reason (= what rich people gets), but how could I justify it to myself (why me and not others?), and what about being permanently afraid of others/losing my possessions, having to deal with lots of hypocrisy and frivolous expectations, etc? Why not becoming a social climber? Being disrespected by richer and poorer people. All the day thinking about doing whatever is required to accomplish my long-term goals, but unlikely now, not feeling any kind of daily fulfillment, not even respecting myself. And what about when I get there? Would my nice car, house, (probably-attracted-by-my-money) wife and (probably-spoiled) kids compensate years of doing regretful things? Rich people would never truly consider me one of them, neither poor people. I would only have money and the feeling of having won some kind of race, but not completely fairly. No, thanks. I prefer to enjoy every single second of my life like I am doing right now.
Perhaps, I don't have nice things or have to pass through more difficulties than required, but I also enjoy a ton every single bit I get. If I accomplish all my goals, I would truly deserve it and would enjoy even more. If I can't get all what I want, I would feel reasonably well too because of accepting that I did all what I could (or, at some point, the cost become unacceptable). You might get faster to your destination in your Ferrari, but I will be surely enjoying a lot my long walking trip:)
not a single week that goes by wherein I don't accidentally discover yet another way to lock up a web browser
Even if you did it intentionally, making a given piece of software or part of it irresponsive isn't malicious in most of scenarios. It might be the consequence of a bad implementation or even an implicit security measure (e.g., in case of doubt, get blocked).
I have been seeing annoying (theoretically-)impossible-to-close, uncaught-by-blockers pop-ups for years when accessing certain (cough) sites. The "fix" is easy: kill the browser and/or the given popups. On Windows, some browsers even allow you to close unclosable-otherwise windows by right clicking on the task-bar icon and selecting the window you want (I guess that this has its own thread, unlikely the top closing button on the popup windows). To not mention the tiny issue that this is about JavaScript and well... you could just disable it!
Firstly, creating infinite loops is one of the simplest actions you can perform in programming; actually, it is usually an error or the result of a bad approach in general or in that case. Freezing an application with an infinite loop is one of the most trivial things anyone can do (why publicly releasing a very simple piece of code is relevant at all?!). On the other hand, if an infinite loop can freeze a given GUI, it would mean that the creators of that piece of software haven't done a particularly good multi-threading work (and I am say that despite not being precisely a GUI expert myself). Secondly and as explained above, there is nothing innovative about this thing. And thirdly and more importantly, presenting charges against anyone of any age and with any intention for something so ridiculously inoffensive says a lot (about the ignorance) of the given administration/administrator.
I guess that the we are now in a world where just a word ("exploit") and a baseless-assumption (e.g., young people know how to do stuff with computers) is enough to invent a non-existing something. On the bright side, this seems a win-win situation. The administrator/administration (unmotivatedly) gets an image of zero-tolerance with cyber-criminals. The girl gets her 15 minutes of fame, likely to be very positive, mainly lately and by bearing in mind that we are talking about a young female in a men-dominated field who is (slightly-) against the system.
Mod up. Finally we have a realist on slashdot. Not someone who just take Elon at his word and vague definitions used to cheat people.
Thanks for the kudos, but I think that you got some bits wrong (probably like the people who down-modded some of my posts above for no clear reason). None of my posts was about Elon Musk or Tesla, but about lies (or marketing or promotion or whatever you prefer to call it) regarding self-driving cars; in fact, Volvo was the only manufacturer which I expressly mentioned. The quoted autonomy level definitions come from the article linked by other AC up this thread referring to the US Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) classification. Again, nothing to do with Musk/Tesla. The intention of my original post wasn't even critising these levels, but "Level X technology" as a perfect example of expression apparently meaningful but really meaningless. And as per Musk/Tesla critics, it seems that you can find quite a few of them here in Slashdot.
So and although I am certainly a very realistic person who is completely opposed to any dishonest, empty-words, etc. attempt and much more when dealing with issues about which I have a relevant knowledge (the case with mechanical/industrial engineering, automation approaches or software development), this wasn't a direct critic to Elon Musk, Tesla or this exact article. I am not a Musk fan, but I don't hate him either. Honestly, I don't even care about him, what he does, his wins/losses/truths/lies. I care about openly and objectively discussing about whatever issue which, eventually, might refer to Musk or Tesla.
Again, my original post wasn't about autonomy levels, but we can discuss about this too. Let's take as examples Levels 2 and 3 which, according to your link, are defined as follows:
Level 2: In level 2, at least one driver assistance system of "both steering and acceleration/ deceleration using information about the driving environment" is automated, like cruise control and lane-centering. It means that the "driver is disengaged from physically operating the vehicle by having his or her hands off the steering wheel AND foot off pedal at the same time," according to the SAE. The driver must still always be ready to take control of the vehicle, however.
Level 3: Drivers are still necessary in level 3 cars, but are able to completely shift "safety-critical functions" to the vehicle, under certain traffic or environmental conditions. It means that the driver is still present and will intervene if necessary, but is not required to monitor the situation in the same way it does for the previous levels. Jim McBride, autonomous vehicles expert at Ford, said this is "the biggest demarcation is between Levels 3 and 4." He's focused on getting Ford straight to Level 4, since Level 3, which involves transferring control from car to human, can often pose difficulties. "We're not going to ask the driver to instantaneously intervene—that's not a fair proposition," McBride said.
Expressions like "using information about the driving environment" (what information? what environment? The road, weather, inside the car, other cars?, etc.) or "driver is disengaged from physically operating the vehicle" (under which conditions? For how long? Does it include all the possible actions or only essential ones?, etc.) or "safety-critical functions" (what does it mean? Avoiding a person or an animal jumping in front of the car or problems due to heavy weather or avoiding obstacles in the road, etc.? All these cases require different skills/"technologies", and also include tons of sub-scenarios, how could anyone accurately define all of them under the same category?!) or "certain traffic or environmental conditions" ("certain" might be easily considered the exact opposite to properly defined!).
I am not criticising the definitions you are proposing or suggesting that I can do it better. This is a tremendously complex reality and, as such, can't be generically defined in an accurate enough way. The only accurate enough definition has to be the result of accounting for a huge number of sub-situations and making lots of decisions about unclear scenarios what, ultimately, would be somehow against the over-simplifying essence which underlies these levels. These are reasonably good generic ideas for as long as they are treated as such, not as perfectly-defined absolute truths. Knowledgeably avoiding complexity is certainly acceptable, unreasonably expecting a complex reality to be fully defined by simplistic ideas is, at least, tremendously naive.
These are referring to autonomy levels, not versions
I know that and this is the reason why I didn't say "Level 2" (with some meaning), but "Level 2 technology" (without any real meaning). Or, in other words, one thing is the target result (reaching certain level of autonomy) and a completely different story is doing what is required to accomplish that result (accounting for all the involved issues what, here and almost anywhere else, are addressed through many casuistic solutions rather than a comprehensive single one, as implied by "Level N technology").
In any case, these autonomy levels are still pretty generic and not-too-well delimited. They are similar to expressions like AI, which might be rightfully used in many different contexts by referring to many different situations, without properly defining any of them. As said in the title of my previous post: meaningless expressions.
if the previously promised technology has been abandoned and Level 2 is now the most they can expect.
I find very funny when I read statements on these lines, backed by meaningless words but assumed to have some profound meaning. Level 2 technology! Better than Level 1 technology, but worse than Level 3 technology! LOL. I remember an article here not long time ago (2 years max.?) where a car manufacturer (Volvo I think) was planning to release their first Level-5 self-driving car within a year. I guess that we are now back to Level 2 technology.
As a reminder of how tremendously stupid people can be (and why I don't feel like posting much online, for too long and without detailed enough explanations), I will explain the aforementioned joke: - Typical nonsense from in-denial rich idiots is that the main reason for being poor is having spent all their money on irrelevant things, rather than investing or making long-term decisions. Logically, they can't understand (because they are idiots) that some people have no choice, that long-term decisions can only be made by those able to afford them, a true luxury for a big number of people. - I took advantage from this article referring to what, at first sight, seems an over-privileged situation of a probably rich kid: having access to much more money than what most of kids of his age will ever have. - By putting the two previous points together, most of people should be able to understand the joke: I said that I am poor (well... kind of) because I wasted lots of money on irrelevant things (candies and toys) rather than on doing something like what the kid in the linked article did. The joke should have been evident (additionally to the ending LOL and having been quickly and accurately modded as funny), because this is a tremendously unrealistic situation: a kid, no matter how rich his family is, getting a so big amount of money, meant to be for something as unrealistic as nuclear power, and being able to freely dispose of it?! And even if that could be true, such a kid would never be poor or kind of poor or anything other then extremely rich. Even If there was still any doubt, it should be clear that I don't have much money and never did (as clearly stated in my profile description here).
I know, I know... lots of people, virtually anyone with half brain cell and a bit of world experience, should understand the joke without any clarification. But there are also quite a few individuals seriously unable to understand it! Some of them have probably read my previous posts, not properly understood anything, come up with god-knows-what crazily stupid interpretation and, now, (hopefully) finally understood it. I am not expecting to cure extreme stupidity. I don't even aspire anymore to help those lost souls to understand that, at least, they should avoid dealing with people like me. I am simply making a point, a tiny one and one of the last times. Lastly, I want to highlight that I truly don't care about money and don't envy anyone (certainly, not someone getting everything undeservedly and without enough effort; I feel mostly pity for those). This was just about mocking what I think that deserves to be mocked. A small colourful detail which, ideally, shouldn't require this idiot-proof clarification. I am certainly kind of (or formally) poor, but that fact doesn't really represent a problem to me. So, I guess that even "kind of poor" isn't fully applicable to my situation; at least, not by relying on ideas on the lines of "the less you need, the richer you are".
Anyway... I just wanted to write a few posts to somehow reinforce my karma & moderation privileges (is it required, right? Not completely sure though). Now, back to just reading and moderating:)
Slashdot Mirror
We are not talking 4,000 here. We are talking 4,000,000,000 times
Sorry, my bad. You did write it properly in your previous message, but I did misread it (too much activity in Slashdot today :)). But this doesn't change much my point and still let unanswered my question. When and why happens the transition from bigger and brighter to no mass, no light and lots of weird things? Without forgetting the very likely huge error in the calculations (because of the distance, the lack of information, a theories created for completely different conditions, etc.).
It is very interesting that you deem the science to be very weak, yet you admit to not having very limited scientific training.
You seem very bad at understanding/guessing. I have never and will ever say anything on the lines of "deem the science to be very weak", I am completely convinced by the scientific method and, by default and in principle, I always trust in what science as a whole says. I do have a very relevant knowledge in physics (not in this specific theory; well... actually I also have a pretty good knowledge about it too, but let's say that it isn't too compatible with the one which you and others here have :)) and that's why I can critically analyse something, rather than blindly trusting in its validity. Even in the fields where my knowledge is more limited (e.g., biology), I wouldn't ever accept absolute truths or people criticising me for doing something like asking/wanting to go further/understand better and make others understand, basically what defines science (as opposed to religion or even fanaticism).
Because stellar physics tells us that there are limits to stellar sizes and brightnesses.
Why? Who told you so, monsignor, Archangel Gabriel? LOL. Sorry, but I told you before (pretty sure that you are the same AC): not interested in your abstract intentions.
The reason for certain "beforehand knowledge" is previously settled science.
No. You don't get it. Science (and pretty much everything else) is usually working over previous work, this is evident. But that doesn't describe the scientific method, this is just being practical, sensible and efficient. The scientific method is about wondering, asking and finding answers. Asking every single detail at every point would be 100% compatible with the scientific method, but tremendously inefficient. What is completely against the scientific method is not being able/wanting to answer/understand via relying on statements on the lines of "it is settle science" (another version of "god told me so in a dream").
The best way to confirm a black hole is by looking at the red/blue shift of the orbiting material. This allows you to calculate orbital speed, and that tells you about mass and radius.
OK. As commented above, I get all that. What I don't get is the point where you perform the transition from star/what we know/what every theory is about to the black hole fantasy world. Apparently, you do that when the calculations conclude that the center of a galaxy is 4k times the mass of our sun. My question is: why can't it be a star which is 4k times (or any other size) the size of our sun? Why can't it be a star 4k brighter than our sun, why it has to become that matter-less, light-/time-trapping elucubration basing all sorts of apocalyptic-like assumptions whose scientific foundation seems very weak to me?
This is a certainly bright galaxy, true. And that seems to reinforce what looks like a pretty sensible interpretation, as explained in my previous reply: what if there is a star there which is 4k times our sun (or 1k by assuming some errors or even 1M, isn't that precisely what the universe is about: unmanageably big and unkown)? You see more light, your calculations output more mass and your conclusion is that it isn't a bigger, brighter star, but something else?
:)) your conclusions and assuming that something 4000 times more massive is likely to be much more brighter and to have a much stronger gravitational force, you move to "black hole" (the end and beginning of everything, where time exist and not exist, where your dreams become true, etc.)? Why? And why assuming a black or light-less or matter-less center rather than the much more logical tremendously bright and massive one? Because a century-old theory (about which I will better not talk) told you so? It doesn't sound too scientific to me.
Rather than reasonably scaling up (I am not precisely a scaling-it-up fan, but in this case it does seem applicable
From the movement of stars in the center of M87 you can calculate the mass of the center. The movement you can tell from the Doppler effect of their light. If they are moving to us, it is slightly shifted to the blue. If they move away from us, the light is redshifted. That's how you can tell the speed of the stars when circling the galactic center. From the distance to the center, you can tell the orbits. With the orbits and the speed, you know how much mass they are circling, because you can calculate the force that keeps them on their orbits. And when you get a mass of at least 4 billion times the mass of the Sun, you gotta ask which object has so much mass, especially if you don't see the light equivalent of 4 billion stars in the galaxy's center.
Thanks. Much better. So, you are basically applying the relativity theory of gravity to very far objects and, when finding clearly wrong results (or, at least, as per our experience and expectations), you come up with that black hole idea. Rather than, for example, assuming a limited (or even completely erroneous) theory which, on the other hand, seems the most sensible proceeding when dealing with so hugely complex events. I don't know... why expecting the same (tremendously simplistic) rules which work in our system to be applicable to any other galaxy and group of bodies? Anyway... I don't want to come into all this, just to understand this black-hole measuring situation, for what your comments are being very helpful. Thanks again.
As far as you seem to have a very good knowledge about all this, I hope that you don't mind if I keep asking some doubts. For example, the aforementioned basic theory seems reasonably sound but, logically, within certain limits. So, you perform the basic calculations and apply the basic assumptions (e.g., planets orbiting certain central start) and you get unreasonable results. How are you dismissing what, a priori, seems the most logical explanation of having a very big, massive central body? 4000 times our sun? And? Why should that be considered impossible when talking about the universe? Without forgetting the fact that we are relying on a (far from perfect) set of calculations and assumptions, and that we might not even be getting all the information. Because the alternative is moving to the complete unknown (almost arbitrary, if you ask my opinion): a very big star is fully compatible with all our remaining knowledge, but assuming a crazily different phenomenon which can only exist in our imagination seems a pretty big leap, mainly for science. What if the calculations determined that there is a mass of 100 times our sun, or 500? What is the threshold to move to the "let's assume that it is black hole"?
I see another issue when performing the aforementioned transition from very big star to black hole. We more or less know and understand the behaviour of stars/planets, almost regardless of its size. We don't know much about a black hole, but as I understand our guesses are pretty apocalyptic. So, how could the given planets continue orbiting under more or less the same rules than are applicable to a star (= gravity theory of relativity) when talking about a black hole? Shouldn't all of them be immediately suck into the black hole? Or, at least, should the situation become so crazily different than all the performed calculations wouldn't really make any sense? Let's imagine that, at t0, you calculate the mass in the center of the galaxy and come to certain value. If now, in t1, you conclude that that central body isn't a star, but a black hole because you got 4000 times the mass of the sun, how could the calculations made in t0 (precisely driving you to the current conclusion) make any sense? You are assuming that a black and a star are extremely different, but you are determining the size of the black hole (even knowing that it is such a thing) by relying on theories only applicable and validated (well...) to stars. Furthermore, you see that the orbiting planets continue behaving as they would do in case of being a (very big) star, so why can you come to all these conclusions of blacks holes being so tremendously different to big stars?
Because that is how the scientific method works and keeps improving our understanding of the Universe.
?! I am asking about the reasons for certain beforehand knowledge (-> precisely the way in which the scientific method works, asking questions to understand everything rather than blindly accepting absolute truths) and your answer is that this is how the scientific method works?! So, you are taking whatever starting point you are being given (i.e., "this galaxy has a black hole in it. Accept it and don't ask any questions!"), blindly following it and you think that this is what the scientific method is about?! Sorry, but I can't continue reading your reply after that.
You should better focus on dealing with people sharing your views, rather than starting clearly unwelcome discussions. Why unnecessarily creating problems? I have been very clear since the start about my expectations: zero interest in abstract chatting.
We knew beforehand that M87
It seems to me that there is lots of beforehand issues here and I see a problem with that. This doesn't seem too scientific. Why could you know that there was a black hole there? And even once you knew it what were you looking for? You are talking about energy measurements, but of what and what values are you getting? What is black hole and what is not? We are in the space, there is a planet here, some asteroids over there and then the black hole. You determine what is what by taking energy measurements, but of what? How? What tells what is what? Even better: if you apply that exact methodology in a known-place (e.g., around Earth) are you getting everything right too? (planets and no black holes). Or, in other words, is the beforehand premise of being around a black hole required?
weeding out data, that has errors, took so long
What kind of errors? How can you correct them? And much more important: how are you making sure that the corrections are not actually introducing real errors (turning the actual reality into the one which you want to see)? I don't know what kind of energy measurements you are taking, but how could them be erroneous? Too far away perhaps? A methodology/expectations brought to the limit perhaps? Still you haven't answered my first question about how you know that what appears to be a black hole to the instruments isn't really a limitation of the device capabilities. Could you please elaborate more about how are you are actually recognising the black hole part/measuring energies/associated them with matter/no matter? Are there some minimum/maximum thresholds? Negative/null values perhaps?
Storing the raw data for the image was a feat itself -- tiny portions of data spread across five petabytes stored on multiple hard drives
the development of the algorithm that imaged the black hole
each pointed at the black hole and gathering data at different times. The data scientists then pieced this information together and used an algorithm to fill in the blanks and generate a likely image of the black hole
Let's imagine a very simplistic scenario as starting point. We have a set of 2D points drawing a square (0,0), (1,0), (1,1), (0,1). The points represent matter (in whatever way: via mass, forces, behaviour of light, etc.) and the square center the black hole. You can convert that simplistic drawing into an as big as required one by accumulating more data points around the square. Let's assume that you have now 1 million points or 1 billion or 100 billions of billions, but not a single point in the central part, where the black hole is supposed to be.
Honestly, my knowledge about relativity, black holes and similar is pretty limited, so please correct me if I am wrong here or at any other point. In any case, please keep the discussion at a level where it is fully compatible with generally-applicable physics, maths and validatable statements. I am not particularly interested in the abstract theoretical, philosophical, similar aspects.
By assuming that the aforementioned ideas are right, I have various doubts:
1. How are they (not) getting data points? How can they find the place where a black hole exists? How do you measure matter (in the space) and absence of it? Or perhaps it is through force/gravity, interaction between bodies? Or the way in which light interact with objects? What is translated into the 0s and 1s, what makes something being a data point or part of the hollowed nothingness?
2. How is supposed to work this approach of using various devices located in different places? This seems a tremendously problematic, error-prone, difficult-to-coordinate/validate/fix methodology. Who and how is confirming the validity of each action/collection? How is it accounting for the fact that this black hole (or any other one, I guess) is extremely far away from us? So far away that there is a little chance to confirm/validate almost anything, that the actual applicability of virtually any assumption might be dubious. If your devices only find black holes in extremely far away places, wouldn't it make some sense to think that the absence of data might be associated with the limited capability of the devices? Or, in other words, how can anyone be sure that a device delivering a nonexistent/negative/erroneous measurement (a basic requisite to find a black hole, right?) is undoubtedly indicating the presence of something?
3. Why taking so long and collecting so much information when the black hole was already located? What is that algorithm exactly doing that couldn't have been easily done before? As shown in my simplistic example, once you locate the big deal here (the beyond-imaginable hollow where everything and nothing is possible), all the surroundings seem pretty irrelevant. Collecting 1 or 1M data points seems quite trivial, exactly the same than generating a picture from those data points. Even if you are representing interactions/forces/attractions because all that has to be already reflected in the collected information. Is perhaps that algorithm doing something else rather than just generating a picture associated with a set of descriptive enough data points? In that case, what is it doing exactly?
PS: what is wrong with the Slashdot moderation system? I haven't got any mod points in a pretty long time!
I find it pretty curious the huge attention that these issues (e.g., when gravitational waves were firstly "found") get; way beyond what other news in virtually any other scientific or non-scientific field get! I just mean full coverage in all the media worldwide, but also in popular culture, internet... everywhere! People with virtually no scientific/technical/physics knowledge, not even truly understanding what is the actual point of this "discovery" (or the real validity/applicability of the underlying theory) sharing their tremendous joy about it! They behave as if we, as species, have made a huge accomplishment! Personally, I don't quite understand all the passion which things like new rockets or going to Mars provoke in some people, but at least I find that much closer and relevant for different reasons (but the associated attention is orders of magnitude lower!).
It reminds me behaviours traditionally linked to deep faith/religion. People getting very happy with stains on the wall looking like Virgin Mary because of implicitly proving that their whole faith is fully validated! For example, if I had the theory that 2+2 is 5 and, for that reason, tomorrow it will rain. Should my followers start blindly defending that 2+2 is 5 because it did actually rain?! NO. Even by assuming that the subsequent event actually and spontaneously happened (I didn't see any weather forecast), that wouldn't automatically validate any starting premise which I proposed. Even if that thing (i.e., nice looking pic really telling nothing) was actually representing even a remotely-related-to-the-theory version of what a black hole is supposed to be (an ironically impossible to be seen/experienced/interacted with/witnessed phenomenon), it wouldn't automatically validate any theory, much less when talking about something so unmanageably huge and comprehensive (expected to have overall applicability!!).
So, here you have the main steps to validate any theory. Firstly, look at the theory itself and make sure that it is completely coherent (with itself and with all what surrounds it, physics/mathematics in this case). Then, make sure that the empirical measurements are reliable (are you sure that all these data points which a very complex system collected from a veeeeeeeeery far location are OK, and that the subsequent model/interpretation/pic accurately describes what they represent?). And finally, confirm that those measurements are really related to the given theory (is this data set really describing a phenomenon which is similar enough to what the theory assumed that should exist?). Have you done all that? Then, you could definitively state that the theory is confirmed (at least, one part of it). Are you just looking at a picture which someone (better: a surprisingly big number of someones) told you that shows what, by definition, can't be shown and that this fact alone proves something? Well... you are free to be happy and to believe in whatever you want, but you shouldn't say that this is a (scientific, reliable, even logical) proof of anything. It is a picture really showing nothing, really proving nothing and whose whole value is based on the assumption that a huge number of people/interests and a tremendously complex system, precisely built to come to that conclusion ("after spending billions, we have discovered that we were wrong and all this has been a tremendous waste of time/resources" doesn't sound like a too probable outcome here, right?), have done everything right and built a surprisingly accurate, descriptive and easy-to-understand-for-everyone version of a very complex reality.
The line between satire and reality is getting finer every day! Hopefully, good quality will continue to be appreciated and Silicon Valley will get back on track.
The promotional video reminded me Pied Piper's tables, back when the show was really good (= before last season).
Yesterday, one of the tags of this post was "troll" (now replaced with "heckyeah"), which I found pretty descriptive of the ideas in the linked article and some online behaviours which I truly fail to understand.
Yesterday, I started to write a post about one of the sentences in the summary, and then about a different one and, finally, decided to not post anything. For what? All seemed pretty evident for reasonable people and those really needing some clarifications wouldn't care about them anyway. I am still here writing this post though.
I have made lots of mistakes in my life
Just to be clear (II): most of those mistakes have been about expecting too much from people ('s knowledge, understanding capabilities, dignity), the real-world applicability of fairness, etc. I have many defects, but lying or being too egoist/greedy or having unmotivated prejudices (much less based on so irrelevant-to-me issues like money or social status) have never been some of those. I know that lying isn't worthy, because of having seen the consequences in other people and enjoyed the benefits of honesty myself.
In summary: the implementation does not provide a proof, and the verifier cannot check, that the important assumption of discrete log hardness made by Bayer and Groth is valid here. It is possible for a malicious authority to generate the perfectly random G1,G2,...in a way that, at the same time, gives it a trapdoor that falsifies an assumption that is central to the security of the Bayer-Groth mixnet construction.
In other words, the reported problem could only be exploited by directly affecting the given application/code. More specifically, certain (assumed-to-be) random numbers would have to be replaced (+ wrong results introduced). The critic is that, if that happened, the given encryption algorithm wouldn't know about that alteration, unlikely what should theoretically occur.
So, the researchers found a way to theoretically affect a cryptographic algorithm in a way which, under ideal circumstances, shouldn't happen. This is what they meant with backdoor: possibility to modify the flow of information against the original intention of the program. Is that bad, should it be fixed, etc.? Sure. In fact, the main point here is precisely to not allow any unmonitored modification of precisely those results. On the other hand, the reference to a "critical backdoor" seems to imply a completely different thing. To not mention the fact that all this is a bit too theoretical and uncontrollable (even by assuming that I have access to the application, how could I get X more votes for party Y?).
It would be nice if I could get lots of money/advantages suddenly and for no reason (= what rich people gets), but how could I justify it to myself
Just to be clear: I did get lots of advantages for no reason, at least in comparison with many other people. But you have to draw the line somewhere. My line is having a reasonably comfortable life as per your country's standards and not belonging to elites or being unfairly preferred in a systematic manner. For example, in my country the public university education is pretty cheap (+ I got scholarships) and relatively good. So, most of people in my country could have got what I did and more if they wanted. I am very grateful for my somehow privileged position in the world and think that most of people should too (very few cases where there isn't someone whose situation is much worse than yours). My previous post was about the extraordinarily rich people, the 1% and above, those to which rules aren't always applicable for reasons like greed, the context where the cheaters mentioned in this article could be considered not too rich.
All my life I was taught to be good. To not steal, not cheat, to not lie.
There is a reason for that: these are the ideal behaviours in most of the cases. Some liars might get away with it, but always at certain cost, and others will get caught and lose much more. There are many different ways to pay that cost: it might be ignorance/living in a bubble/not having really seen or experienced much, being afraid of yourself/getting caught, your whole life permanently depending on someone's else arbitrary decisions and/or pure chance, etc. Additionally, just the fact that our society is systematically appraising certain values (nobody likes cheaters, not even cheaters themselves) represents a relevant fulfillment and self-esteem boost for people behaving in that way.
:)
I understand that there is a lot of hypocrisy and that having certain feelings is relatively common. But I also think that they are provoked by a lack of proper understanding. For example, you are complaining about realising that liars are getting what you want and are also expecting your behaviour to be somehow appraisable. Why? Are you willing to pay the price to get what you want? Go for it! Lie, be dishonest and enjoy the advantages and disadvantages of your actions. Too late for you? Teach that to your family, friends, etc. Try to build an empire over lies for your heirs to eventually be wealthy (you could have the nicest tomb in the whole cemetery,!). Accept your previous error and change your behaviour! Actually trying something is the best way to know for sure if you like it or not.
Even though I haven't ever had much money or influence or power or anything really, I think that I have experienced and learnt quite a few things from many people. I have made lots of mistakes in my life, in fact a big part of my learning has been eminently based on my own errors. It has taken me quite long to find what I truly consider my place, to be sure about what I want now and in the long term. Curiously, I haven't accomplished yet most of my goals. I am only sure about the path and direction to follow. When I read about millions of $ being unmotivatedly wasted, unknowledgeable people making stupid decisions or unfair actions of any type, I do complain, try to change things and all that. But I certainly don't feel envy. I rarely think about these people but, when I do, all what I feel is pity. I imagine myself, with my current knowledge and expectations, in a bubble of hypocrisy, dishonesty, fear, and I feel like puking.
It would be nice if I could get lots of money/advantages suddenly and for no reason (= what rich people gets), but how could I justify it to myself (why me and not others?), and what about being permanently afraid of others/losing my possessions, having to deal with lots of hypocrisy and frivolous expectations, etc? Why not becoming a social climber? Being disrespected by richer and poorer people. All the day thinking about doing whatever is required to accomplish my long-term goals, but unlikely now, not feeling any kind of daily fulfillment, not even respecting myself. And what about when I get there? Would my nice car, house, (probably-attracted-by-my-money) wife and (probably-spoiled) kids compensate years of doing regretful things? Rich people would never truly consider me one of them, neither poor people. I would only have money and the feeling of having won some kind of race, but not completely fairly. No, thanks. I prefer to enjoy every single second of my life like I am doing right now.
Perhaps, I don't have nice things or have to pass through more difficulties than required, but I also enjoy a ton every single bit I get. If I accomplish all my goals, I would truly deserve it and would enjoy even more. If I can't get all what I want, I would feel reasonably well too because of accepting that I did all what I could (or, at some point, the cost become unacceptable). You might get faster to your destination in your Ferrari, but I will be surely enjoying a lot my long walking trip
not a single week that goes by wherein I don't accidentally discover yet another way to lock up a web browser
Even if you did it intentionally, making a given piece of software or part of it irresponsive isn't malicious in most of scenarios. It might be the consequence of a bad implementation or even an implicit security measure (e.g., in case of doubt, get blocked).
I have been seeing annoying (theoretically-)impossible-to-close, uncaught-by-blockers pop-ups for years when accessing certain (cough) sites. The "fix" is easy: kill the browser and/or the given popups. On Windows, some browsers even allow you to close unclosable-otherwise windows by right clicking on the task-bar icon and selecting the window you want (I guess that this has its own thread, unlikely the top closing button on the popup windows). To not mention the tiny issue that this is about JavaScript and well... you could just disable it!
Firstly, creating infinite loops is one of the simplest actions you can perform in programming; actually, it is usually an error or the result of a bad approach in general or in that case. Freezing an application with an infinite loop is one of the most trivial things anyone can do (why publicly releasing a very simple piece of code is relevant at all?!). On the other hand, if an infinite loop can freeze a given GUI, it would mean that the creators of that piece of software haven't done a particularly good multi-threading work (and I am say that despite not being precisely a GUI expert myself). Secondly and as explained above, there is nothing innovative about this thing. And thirdly and more importantly, presenting charges against anyone of any age and with any intention for something so ridiculously inoffensive says a lot (about the ignorance) of the given administration/administrator.
I guess that the we are now in a world where just a word ("exploit") and a baseless-assumption (e.g., young people know how to do stuff with computers) is enough to invent a non-existing something. On the bright side, this seems a win-win situation. The administrator/administration (unmotivatedly) gets an image of zero-tolerance with cyber-criminals. The girl gets her 15 minutes of fame, likely to be very positive, mainly lately and by bearing in mind that we are talking about a young female in a men-dominated field who is (slightly-) against the system.
Mod up. Finally we have a realist on slashdot. Not someone who just take Elon at his word and vague definitions used to cheat people.
Thanks for the kudos, but I think that you got some bits wrong (probably like the people who down-modded some of my posts above for no clear reason). None of my posts was about Elon Musk or Tesla, but about lies (or marketing or promotion or whatever you prefer to call it) regarding self-driving cars; in fact, Volvo was the only manufacturer which I expressly mentioned. The quoted autonomy level definitions come from the article linked by other AC up this thread referring to the US Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) classification. Again, nothing to do with Musk/Tesla. The intention of my original post wasn't even critising these levels, but "Level X technology" as a perfect example of expression apparently meaningful but really meaningless. And as per Musk/Tesla critics, it seems that you can find quite a few of them here in Slashdot.
So and although I am certainly a very realistic person who is completely opposed to any dishonest, empty-words, etc. attempt and much more when dealing with issues about which I have a relevant knowledge (the case with mechanical/industrial engineering, automation approaches or software development), this wasn't a direct critic to Elon Musk, Tesla or this exact article. I am not a Musk fan, but I don't hate him either. Honestly, I don't even care about him, what he does, his wins/losses/truths/lies. I care about openly and objectively discussing about whatever issue which, eventually, might refer to Musk or Tesla.
The point is the autonomy ARE well defined:
Again, my original post wasn't about autonomy levels, but we can discuss about this too. Let's take as examples Levels 2 and 3 which, according to your link, are defined as follows:
Level 2: In level 2, at least one driver assistance system of "both steering and acceleration/ deceleration using information about the driving environment" is automated, like cruise control and lane-centering. It means that the "driver is disengaged from physically operating the vehicle by having his or her hands off the steering wheel AND foot off pedal at the same time," according to the SAE. The driver must still always be ready to take control of the vehicle, however.
Level 3: Drivers are still necessary in level 3 cars, but are able to completely shift "safety-critical functions" to the vehicle, under certain traffic or environmental conditions. It means that the driver is still present and will intervene if necessary, but is not required to monitor the situation in the same way it does for the previous levels. Jim McBride, autonomous vehicles expert at Ford, said this is "the biggest demarcation is between Levels 3 and 4." He's focused on getting Ford straight to Level 4, since Level 3, which involves transferring control from car to human, can often pose difficulties. "We're not going to ask the driver to instantaneously intervene—that's not a fair proposition," McBride said.
Expressions like "using information about the driving environment" (what information? what environment? The road, weather, inside the car, other cars?, etc.) or "driver is disengaged from physically operating the vehicle" (under which conditions? For how long? Does it include all the possible actions or only essential ones?, etc.) or "safety-critical functions" (what does it mean? Avoiding a person or an animal jumping in front of the car or problems due to heavy weather or avoiding obstacles in the road, etc.? All these cases require different skills/"technologies", and also include tons of sub-scenarios, how could anyone accurately define all of them under the same category?!) or "certain traffic or environmental conditions" ("certain" might be easily considered the exact opposite to properly defined!).
I am not criticising the definitions you are proposing or suggesting that I can do it better. This is a tremendously complex reality and, as such, can't be generically defined in an accurate enough way. The only accurate enough definition has to be the result of accounting for a huge number of sub-situations and making lots of decisions about unclear scenarios what, ultimately, would be somehow against the over-simplifying essence which underlies these levels. These are reasonably good generic ideas for as long as they are treated as such, not as perfectly-defined absolute truths. Knowledgeably avoiding complexity is certainly acceptable, unreasonably expecting a complex reality to be fully defined by simplistic ideas is, at least, tremendously naive.
These are referring to autonomy levels, not versions
I know that and this is the reason why I didn't say "Level 2" (with some meaning), but "Level 2 technology" (without any real meaning). Or, in other words, one thing is the target result (reaching certain level of autonomy) and a completely different story is doing what is required to accomplish that result (accounting for all the involved issues what, here and almost anywhere else, are addressed through many casuistic solutions rather than a comprehensive single one, as implied by "Level N technology").
In any case, these autonomy levels are still pretty generic and not-too-well delimited. They are similar to expressions like AI, which might be rightfully used in many different contexts by referring to many different situations, without properly defining any of them. As said in the title of my previous post: meaningless expressions.
if the previously promised technology has been abandoned and Level 2 is now the most they can expect.
I find very funny when I read statements on these lines, backed by meaningless words but assumed to have some profound meaning. Level 2 technology! Better than Level 1 technology, but worse than Level 3 technology! LOL. I remember an article here not long time ago (2 years max.?) where a car manufacturer (Volvo I think) was planning to release their first Level-5 self-driving car within a year. I guess that we are now back to Level 2 technology.
As a reminder of how tremendously stupid people can be (and why I don't feel like posting much online, for too long and without detailed enough explanations), I will explain the aforementioned joke:
:)
- Typical nonsense from in-denial rich idiots is that the main reason for being poor is having spent all their money on irrelevant things, rather than investing or making long-term decisions. Logically, they can't understand (because they are idiots) that some people have no choice, that long-term decisions can only be made by those able to afford them, a true luxury for a big number of people.
- I took advantage from this article referring to what, at first sight, seems an over-privileged situation of a probably rich kid: having access to much more money than what most of kids of his age will ever have.
- By putting the two previous points together, most of people should be able to understand the joke: I said that I am poor (well... kind of) because I wasted lots of money on irrelevant things (candies and toys) rather than on doing something like what the kid in the linked article did. The joke should have been evident (additionally to the ending LOL and having been quickly and accurately modded as funny), because this is a tremendously unrealistic situation: a kid, no matter how rich his family is, getting a so big amount of money, meant to be for something as unrealistic as nuclear power, and being able to freely dispose of it?! And even if that could be true, such a kid would never be poor or kind of poor or anything other then extremely rich. Even If there was still any doubt, it should be clear that I don't have much money and never did (as clearly stated in my profile description here).
I know, I know... lots of people, virtually anyone with half brain cell and a bit of world experience, should understand the joke without any clarification. But there are also quite a few individuals seriously unable to understand it! Some of them have probably read my previous posts, not properly understood anything, come up with god-knows-what crazily stupid interpretation and, now, (hopefully) finally understood it. I am not expecting to cure extreme stupidity. I don't even aspire anymore to help those lost souls to understand that, at least, they should avoid dealing with people like me. I am simply making a point, a tiny one and one of the last times. Lastly, I want to highlight that I truly don't care about money and don't envy anyone (certainly, not someone getting everything undeservedly and without enough effort; I feel mostly pity for those). This was just about mocking what I think that deserves to be mocked. A small colourful detail which, ideally, shouldn't require this idiot-proof clarification. I am certainly kind of (or formally) poor, but that fact doesn't really represent a problem to me. So, I guess that even "kind of poor" isn't fully applicable to my situation; at least, not by relying on ideas on the lines of "the less you need, the richer you are".
Anyway... I just wanted to write a few posts to somehow reinforce my karma & moderation privileges (is it required, right? Not completely sure though). Now, back to just reading and moderating