The tweet is on what appears to be an official twitter account. But, it claims the vehicle was traveling at 65 mph when it struck???
Firemen with any experience at all have usually worked a few highway crashes. Anyone with a clue as to what striking a near immovable object (as demonstrated by the mostly superficial damage to the truck) at 65 mph does to a modern vehicle with all sorts of built-in crumple zones can tell at a glance that this collision occurred at a far slower speed than 65 mph. I'd be surprised if it was even 40mph. It does not even appear that any of the Tesla's glass cracked. And the damage to the truck appears to be at a surface level. I wonder if the airbags deployed?
As public officials, these folks need to be much more responsible in what they tweet. Hopefully, responsible officials will correct the record and at least chastise whoever posted the tweet after reviewing the crash data.
The fact that they took half a year to deliver this cluster**** could be an indicator that no true "fix" is possible or that the performance losses of a true fix would have a far worse overall impact than just accepting random reboots.
I understand that they'd likely need a multi-government bailout and years of production time to replace all of the broken processors, but facing reality and moving forward with a real fix feels like the healthiest thing for the system as a whole. How much time and money is being wasted worldwide by IT folks and software engineers on this fiasco?
He specifies the hardware algorithms that can utilize this new representation directly, track the error amount and flag violations with little addition of work. This is not just a representation patent. It is a patent on the algorithms to utilize the representation efficiently.
Using current technology error can be reduced by increasing computation time and/or memory space. The present invention provides this error information within the inventive data structure with little impact on space and performance.
This expresses the key development better. This patent specifies a means by which this error tracking and warning mechanism can be added to floating point HW with little addition of hardware or performance penalty. The operation is not performed twice as other posters here have imagined.
The article's wording definitely misleads as this just provides a means of identifying precision violations efficiently. But, I can imagine that someone could then go further at the assembly level and automatically respond to the new flag by repeating the operation with a higher precision instruction or algorithm.
The whole linking debate would be over if Google would just stop showing any links in searches to content from any organization complaining about linking.
In addition, they say nothing about benign positives. That is worrisome.
Cancer is described by many as a failure of the immune system. They say that we develop cancerous cells constantly that the body detects and eliminates. We only get problematic cancer when the immune system fails to detect and eliminate these cells.
An early detection test with very high sensitivity may start to detect this daily battle. These positives would not be "false" but neither would they necessarily indicate that the body is losing the battle. We do not have good data at this time on how many small cancers the body successfully eliminates before they become a problem that we can detect with traditional methods.
The real danger here is that there is no economic incentive for those in the cancer industry to do anything other than diagnose and treat it, ironically, with treatments that often cause further cancers. They are unlikely to do the research to tease out whether a positive indicates out-of-control cancer.
I tried the Spotify snap on Ubuntu 17.10 a couple of weeks ago. It turned out to be a very bloated logout tool. So much for my first excursion into optional snaps. Had to roll back to the package.
Average clothes are definitely far less durable today than 20 years ago. They appear to cost less, but I believe cost more over the long term. My jeans used to last about 150 wear / wash cycles and now seem to be good for only half that. Other clothes are far less durable than that.
It seems as though we've entered into an age where having the latest clothes is more important than how much they cost. This turns durability into something the average consumer has no desire to pay extra for. Why pay more to facilitate donating?
The ultimate evolution of this would be to have a brand new outfit every time you dress. There could be a market there for a home grown clothing industry.
Manufacturers based in the US can't compete in the clothing industry as it exists. So, perhaps they should seek instead to disrupt the industry.
We should seek to develop a device similar in size to a washer-dryer combination that will break down old clothes and create new ones. It would likely need to have supplies in canisters that are replaced. There would also likely be components that can't be recycled in the machine and must be removed to a depot for recycling. So, a service would cart away collection canisters and install new supply canisters periodically.
The business would shift from manufacturing clothes overseas to manufacturing sophisticated machines and recycling supplies locally. Also, clothing design would be a completely separate largely community-based, open source activity that these suppliers would no longer have to concern themselves with.
3D printing technology which has already shown an ability to create crude clothes would be a promising starting point for this. Ultimately I think a tech that could break material down into fibers, reform fibers into threads, and weave new clothes, perhaps from many micro threads instead of long ones, would produce better feeling, seamless clothes than a print from drops approach.
Getting there involves shifting from designing machines that automate human activities (which is what the current clothing industry does) to designing a whole process including the end product that is optimized for real-time on-site production of single-use outfits with full recycling.
Note that I've done no comprehensive analysis to make sure the patches are the problem and I'm pretty sure that my laptop has only received the Meltdown patch with Spectre yet to hit.
I'm much more sure of the laptop issue being related to a kernel update (because I noticed it as soon as I rebooted) than the phone. But all of that is somewhat irrelevant.
Fair or not, the minds of users are going to be focused on performance for a while and any performance issues over the next few months will likely be blamed on Meltdown/Spectre patches first.
Since installing patched software, I'm suddenly having to charge my phone (pixel) twice a day instead of just at night and the fan on my laptop (quad-core Intel processor / ubuntu 17.10) has been steadily running whereas before I could rarely hear it. It's very annoying.
These "bugs" are going to end up being the biggest windfall processor manufacturers have seen in years. Unless these patches are radically improved, all of these devices are going to need to be replaced much sooner than planned.
They'll be charged at the fleet's charging facility using power either purchased in bulk or self-generated.
Within a few years, TaaS enabled by fully autonomous vehicle tech will take over the urban environment at a cost much less than that of the average personally-owned and operated vehicle. All of those parking places and garages will become relics of a bygone age.
As the manufacturers will ultimately operate the fleets as a fully vertical operation, Ford's sales in the urban areas will be to themselves. Uber and Lyft will be absorbed by these autonomous operations or die. The autonomous operations are going to be hitting rates of $0.50 per mile or lower by the late 2020s.
It will take longer for the same transition to occur in the suburban and rural areas. So, yes, they will be installing chargers.
If they don't upgrade the grid, the problems will be solved by end users adding local battery storage. This, in turn, improves the reliability of the home supply. Furthermore, it supports the addition of solar which is difficult here in Florida due to laws preventing the selling of solar energy to the utilities.
So, please don't upgrade what doesn't work. My week-long power outage this year was a great reminder of how antiquated our centralized systems are. They just need to go.
What I need more than anything at the moment is a law to prevent HOAs from blocking the installation of chargers. Without laws to remove impediments from the necessary infrastructure changes, many of us are going to be left out of the revolution.
Personally, I think there is nothing that is not easy to abuse but the easiest thing to abuse system is the one that naively doesn't even attempt to limit abuse. For example, not attempting to reduce the influence of the most easily manipulated voters allows the parties most willing to win through completely dishonest manipulation an advantage. Thus, the current system is being easily abused.
On the other hand, I'd agree with you and the other responder to the point that some simple safeguards would need to be instituted. With the goal of reducing the influence of the least informed 1 percenters (enough to swing many recent elections), one might simply require that any question on the ballot be answerable by 95% of a random voter sample beforehand and then throw out the question's influence if it doesn't achieve a 90% threshold during the actual election.
As an interesting side-effect, I'd imagine all parties would suddenly be interested in informing voters.
Add a short set of very simple, objective questions to the start of the ballot and use it to weight results.
The objective would be to test whether a voter is minimally informed, not to test intelligence.
Questions could range from "who is the current President?" (which would be missed by many even today) to "which year had higher violent crime per capita in the US, 1991 or 2014?" (1991 was over double 2014 so though the magnitude might be arguable the fact of a higher crime rate in 1991 is not).
The results could be used to weight the vote. If you don't even know who the current President is, your vote may not even reflect your own idea of your best interest and is likely to be highly vulnerable to manipulation.
Yes! I make requests like "Hey Google, please turn on the lamp" many times a day. It bugs me that it doesn't acknowledge my "Thank you" after the lamp is turned on. They need to adjust so that the initial "Hey Google" starts a conversation without requiring a "Hey Google" on every exchange.
Exactly. We need to start out right on this one. Avoiding the creation of laws that discriminate against robots and treating them as human even before intelligence is reached is the best way to avoid another civil war over slavery a few decades from now.
It will emerge because there is no need to design it. Intelligence already exists and is not patented. All we have to do is copy it. It would be nice if the patent office would recognize this too and not grant patents on intelligence to anyone seeking them.
Google, Microsoft, and Amazon dwarf Intel. They should not be waiting around for sales parity. They should be creating vendors if the vendors they need aren't there.
In past industries, powerful industries would foster competition amongst their suppliers even if it involved significant loss. It is a necessary business expense that leads to many benefits including competition, diversity in supply (we are vulnerable to terrorists taking out foundries and countries cutting chip supplies today), and diversity in design that helps with problems like the one we just encountered.
I'm not sure why tech operations don't concern themselves as much with this though perhaps they are starting to. It may be a maturity thing. There seem to be more cases of manufacturers using multiple suppliers cropping up lately. Apple intentionally uses both Intel and Qualcomm in phones. Samsung is using both a Qualcomm processor and one of their own design in the S9 generation.
In the data center arena we may be at a threshold. There is renewed competition from AMD and long-shot entries like Qualcomm's 48-core ARM chip. There are also efforts such as Google's TPU to make huge efficiency gains with custom silicone. Those efforts could spread to asking themselves whether they could create a better processor or offload other computation loads onto custom silicone. They can afford to spend a lot of dough to save power or protect their business.
Hopefully, this problem will end up being the catalyst for the big data center operators to do whatever it takes to foster competitors. Such a critical market should have at least three viable suppliers with very different designs and diverse manufacturing centers.
This incident highlights the importance of maintaining vendor diversity in data centers. Modern processors are complex enough that it is not unlikely that any given design has problems waiting to be discovered. It would seem wise for large-scale clients to hedge their bets by having a mix of devices carrying their workload. Imagine the damage if someone discovered a means of bricking Intel processors and added the payload to one of the better viruses.
We are vastly underestimating our genetic predispositions and the depth of our senses if we think that everyone will ever be happy with meat that isn't meat.
This is not the way it will go. With no requirement for drivers, McDonald's and Starbuck's will come to me - all goods will come to me. The fixed locations become pure kitchens and warehouses. If I want to eat someplace different on a special occasion, I may go to a location designed for that but the food of whatever type I choose will still be brought to me wherever I may be, not made there.
If the information wasn't surrounded by so much misinformation and non-information, I might be worried about information overload. As it is, the problem is the time it takes to find enough drops to satiate the thirst.
Samsung OLED operating margins are 12% to 22%, which would put the profit on $22 billion at around 2.5 to 5 billion dollars.
Exactly. They will "make" something less than $5 billion assuming there aren't further issues waiting in the wings as these screens age. They will not make $22 billion. But that is the way most are reading these headlines and articles. The comments and follow-on analyses present on virtually every article that has reported this show that the readers are being successfully misled into believing that Samsung is pocketing $22 billion profit.
There also seems to be a lot of confusion on the actual gross amount Samsung is getting paid for the OLED displays. Contracts reported in the April timeframe worked out to $71 per display. The whole display assembly was reported as $110 as recently as November 8th but includes components such as the touch panel and glass that come from other vendors. The Samsung component is just a piece of that. Many articles, including the WSJ article that started this latest media storm on an old subject have played very loose with the numbers and terms in an apparent attempt to hype Samsung whose stock has been moved by this.
There was also some fast and loose comparison with the Samsung's profit on this versus the Galaxy 8. They limited the comparison to component sales, leaving out the profit that Samsung makes on the phones themselves. Just as Apple makes more profit than the total production cost on each iPhone, Samsung's big profit is on the phones, not the components.
Slashdot Mirror
The tweet is on what appears to be an official twitter account. But, it claims the vehicle was traveling at 65 mph when it struck???
Firemen with any experience at all have usually worked a few highway crashes. Anyone with a clue as to what striking a near immovable object (as demonstrated by the mostly superficial damage to the truck) at 65 mph does to a modern vehicle with all sorts of built-in crumple zones can tell at a glance that this collision occurred at a far slower speed than 65 mph. I'd be surprised if it was even 40mph. It does not even appear that any of the Tesla's glass cracked. And the damage to the truck appears to be at a surface level. I wonder if the airbags deployed?
As public officials, these folks need to be much more responsible in what they tweet. Hopefully, responsible officials will correct the record and at least chastise whoever posted the tweet after reviewing the crash data.
The fact that they took half a year to deliver this cluster**** could be an indicator that no true "fix" is possible or that the performance losses of a true fix would have a far worse overall impact than just accepting random reboots.
I understand that they'd likely need a multi-government bailout and years of production time to replace all of the broken processors, but facing reality and moving forward with a real fix feels like the healthiest thing for the system as a whole. How much time and money is being wasted worldwide by IT folks and software engineers on this fiasco?
He specifies the hardware algorithms that can utilize this new representation directly, track the error amount and flag violations with little addition of work. This is not just a representation patent. It is a patent on the algorithms to utilize the representation efficiently.
From the patent:
Using current technology error can be reduced by increasing computation time and/or memory space. The present invention provides this error information within the inventive data structure with little impact on space and performance.
This expresses the key development better. This patent specifies a means by which this error tracking and warning mechanism can be added to floating point HW with little addition of hardware or performance penalty. The operation is not performed twice as other posters here have imagined.
The article's wording definitely misleads as this just provides a means of identifying precision violations efficiently. But, I can imagine that someone could then go further at the assembly level and automatically respond to the new flag by repeating the operation with a higher precision instruction or algorithm.
The whole linking debate would be over if Google would just stop showing any links in searches to content from any organization complaining about linking.
In addition, they say nothing about benign positives. That is worrisome.
Cancer is described by many as a failure of the immune system. They say that we develop cancerous cells constantly that the body detects and eliminates. We only get problematic cancer when the immune system fails to detect and eliminate these cells.
An early detection test with very high sensitivity may start to detect this daily battle. These positives would not be "false" but neither would they necessarily indicate that the body is losing the battle. We do not have good data at this time on how many small cancers the body successfully eliminates before they become a problem that we can detect with traditional methods.
The real danger here is that there is no economic incentive for those in the cancer industry to do anything other than diagnose and treat it, ironically, with treatments that often cause further cancers. They are unlikely to do the research to tease out whether a positive indicates out-of-control cancer.
I tried the Spotify snap on Ubuntu 17.10 a couple of weeks ago. It turned out to be a very bloated logout tool. So much for my first excursion into optional snaps. Had to roll back to the package.
Average clothes are definitely far less durable today than 20 years ago. They appear to cost less, but I believe cost more over the long term. My jeans used to last about 150 wear / wash cycles and now seem to be good for only half that. Other clothes are far less durable than that.
It seems as though we've entered into an age where having the latest clothes is more important than how much they cost. This turns durability into something the average consumer has no desire to pay extra for. Why pay more to facilitate donating?
The ultimate evolution of this would be to have a brand new outfit every time you dress. There could be a market there for a home grown clothing industry.
Manufacturers based in the US can't compete in the clothing industry as it exists. So, perhaps they should seek instead to disrupt the industry.
We should seek to develop a device similar in size to a washer-dryer combination that will break down old clothes and create new ones. It would likely need to have supplies in canisters that are replaced. There would also likely be components that can't be recycled in the machine and must be removed to a depot for recycling. So, a service would cart away collection canisters and install new supply canisters periodically.
The business would shift from manufacturing clothes overseas to manufacturing sophisticated machines and recycling supplies locally. Also, clothing design would be a completely separate largely community-based, open source activity that these suppliers would no longer have to concern themselves with.
3D printing technology which has already shown an ability to create crude clothes would be a promising starting point for this. Ultimately I think a tech that could break material down into fibers, reform fibers into threads, and weave new clothes, perhaps from many micro threads instead of long ones, would produce better feeling, seamless clothes than a print from drops approach.
Getting there involves shifting from designing machines that automate human activities (which is what the current clothing industry does) to designing a whole process including the end product that is optimized for real-time on-site production of single-use outfits with full recycling.
Note that I've done no comprehensive analysis to make sure the patches are the problem and I'm pretty sure that my laptop has only received the Meltdown patch with Spectre yet to hit.
I'm much more sure of the laptop issue being related to a kernel update (because I noticed it as soon as I rebooted) than the phone. But all of that is somewhat irrelevant.
Fair or not, the minds of users are going to be focused on performance for a while and any performance issues over the next few months will likely be blamed on Meltdown/Spectre patches first.
Since installing patched software, I'm suddenly having to charge my phone (pixel) twice a day instead of just at night and the fan on my laptop (quad-core Intel processor / ubuntu 17.10) has been steadily running whereas before I could rarely hear it. It's very annoying.
These "bugs" are going to end up being the biggest windfall processor manufacturers have seen in years. Unless these patches are radically improved, all of these devices are going to need to be replaced much sooner than planned.
They'll be charged at the fleet's charging facility using power either purchased in bulk or self-generated.
Within a few years, TaaS enabled by fully autonomous vehicle tech will take over the urban environment at a cost much less than that of the average personally-owned and operated vehicle. All of those parking places and garages will become relics of a bygone age.
As the manufacturers will ultimately operate the fleets as a fully vertical operation, Ford's sales in the urban areas will be to themselves. Uber and Lyft will be absorbed by these autonomous operations or die. The autonomous operations are going to be hitting rates of $0.50 per mile or lower by the late 2020s.
It will take longer for the same transition to occur in the suburban and rural areas. So, yes, they will be installing chargers.
If they don't upgrade the grid, the problems will be solved by end users adding local battery storage. This, in turn, improves the reliability of the home supply. Furthermore, it supports the addition of solar which is difficult here in Florida due to laws preventing the selling of solar energy to the utilities.
So, please don't upgrade what doesn't work. My week-long power outage this year was a great reminder of how antiquated our centralized systems are. They just need to go.
What I need more than anything at the moment is a law to prevent HOAs from blocking the installation of chargers. Without laws to remove impediments from the necessary infrastructure changes, many of us are going to be left out of the revolution.
Personally, I think there is nothing that is not easy to abuse but the easiest thing to abuse system is the one that naively doesn't even attempt to limit abuse. For example, not attempting to reduce the influence of the most easily manipulated voters allows the parties most willing to win through completely dishonest manipulation an advantage. Thus, the current system is being easily abused.
On the other hand, I'd agree with you and the other responder to the point that some simple safeguards would need to be instituted. With the goal of reducing the influence of the least informed 1 percenters (enough to swing many recent elections), one might simply require that any question on the ballot be answerable by 95% of a random voter sample beforehand and then throw out the question's influence if it doesn't achieve a 90% threshold during the actual election.
As an interesting side-effect, I'd imagine all parties would suddenly be interested in informing voters.
Add a short set of very simple, objective questions to the start of the ballot and use it to weight results.
The objective would be to test whether a voter is minimally informed, not to test intelligence.
Questions could range from "who is the current President?" (which would be missed by many even today) to "which year had higher violent crime per capita in the US, 1991 or 2014?" (1991 was over double 2014 so though the magnitude might be arguable the fact of a higher crime rate in 1991 is not).
The results could be used to weight the vote. If you don't even know who the current President is, your vote may not even reflect your own idea of your best interest and is likely to be highly vulnerable to manipulation.
Yes! I make requests like "Hey Google, please turn on the lamp" many times a day. It bugs me that it doesn't acknowledge my "Thank you" after the lamp is turned on. They need to adjust so that the initial "Hey Google" starts a conversation without requiring a "Hey Google" on every exchange.
Exactly. We need to start out right on this one. Avoiding the creation of laws that discriminate against robots and treating them as human even before intelligence is reached is the best way to avoid another civil war over slavery a few decades from now.
It will emerge because there is no need to design it. Intelligence already exists and is not patented. All we have to do is copy it. It would be nice if the patent office would recognize this too and not grant patents on intelligence to anyone seeking them.
Google, Microsoft, and Amazon dwarf Intel. They should not be waiting around for sales parity. They should be creating vendors if the vendors they need aren't there.
In past industries, powerful industries would foster competition amongst their suppliers even if it involved significant loss. It is a necessary business expense that leads to many benefits including competition, diversity in supply (we are vulnerable to terrorists taking out foundries and countries cutting chip supplies today), and diversity in design that helps with problems like the one we just encountered.
I'm not sure why tech operations don't concern themselves as much with this though perhaps they are starting to. It may be a maturity thing. There seem to be more cases of manufacturers using multiple suppliers cropping up lately. Apple intentionally uses both Intel and Qualcomm in phones. Samsung is using both a Qualcomm processor and one of their own design in the S9 generation.
In the data center arena we may be at a threshold. There is renewed competition from AMD and long-shot entries like Qualcomm's 48-core ARM chip. There are also efforts such as Google's TPU to make huge efficiency gains with custom silicone. Those efforts could spread to asking themselves whether they could create a better processor or offload other computation loads onto custom silicone. They can afford to spend a lot of dough to save power or protect their business.
Hopefully, this problem will end up being the catalyst for the big data center operators to do whatever it takes to foster competitors. Such a critical market should have at least three viable suppliers with very different designs and diverse manufacturing centers.
This incident highlights the importance of maintaining vendor diversity in data centers. Modern processors are complex enough that it is not unlikely that any given design has problems waiting to be discovered. It would seem wise for large-scale clients to hedge their bets by having a mix of devices carrying their workload. Imagine the damage if someone discovered a means of bricking Intel processors and added the payload to one of the better viruses.
More importantly, this allows the server the possibility of keeping the tips when the new administration rules allowing the business to keep the tips kick in.
We are vastly underestimating our genetic predispositions and the depth of our senses if we think that everyone will ever be happy with meat that isn't meat.
This is not the way it will go. With no requirement for drivers, McDonald's and Starbuck's will come to me - all goods will come to me. The fixed locations become pure kitchens and warehouses. If I want to eat someplace different on a special occasion, I may go to a location designed for that but the food of whatever type I choose will still be brought to me wherever I may be, not made there.
It has gone beyond dreaming and is seeing mirages!
If the information wasn't surrounded by so much misinformation and non-information, I might be worried about information overload. As it is, the problem is the time it takes to find enough drops to satiate the thirst.
Samsung OLED operating margins are 12% to 22%, which would put the profit on $22 billion at around 2.5 to 5 billion dollars.
Exactly. They will "make" something less than $5 billion assuming there aren't further issues waiting in the wings as these screens age. They will not make $22 billion. But that is the way most are reading these headlines and articles. The comments and follow-on analyses present on virtually every article that has reported this show that the readers are being successfully misled into believing that Samsung is pocketing $22 billion profit.
There also seems to be a lot of confusion on the actual gross amount Samsung is getting paid for the OLED displays. Contracts reported in the April timeframe worked out to $71 per display. The whole display assembly was reported as $110 as recently as November 8th but includes components such as the touch panel and glass that come from other vendors. The Samsung component is just a piece of that. Many articles, including the WSJ article that started this latest media storm on an old subject have played very loose with the numbers and terms in an apparent attempt to hype Samsung whose stock has been moved by this.
There was also some fast and loose comparison with the Samsung's profit on this versus the Galaxy 8. They limited the comparison to component sales, leaving out the profit that Samsung makes on the phones themselves. Just as Apple makes more profit than the total production cost on each iPhone, Samsung's big profit is on the phones, not the components.