Sorta like seeing the words "$60,000," "telecom sector," and "over his Assembly Career," and turning that into "AT&T dropped a $60,000 BRIBE."
Actually, that's more like anti-critical thinking -- squeezing your eyes shut to the actual facts because there's a rhetorical point you so desperately want to make.
Which is the same reason you're spending so much time spewing invective and pounding the table -- you have nothing whatsoever cogent to say. And I credit you with enough neural activity to understand that full well.
Oh, come on. Your big smoking gun article is the one already provided in the summary? The one that piled up a bunch of innuendo in the place of actual facts, which they clearly didn't have? The one that says nothing about $60k, a bribe, or anything actually concrete?
I'd say you can do better, but I'm afraid you just confirmed you can't.
If these "financial ties" were anything even remotely damning, you know they'd be front and center.
Instead, we have a grab bag of stuff along the lines of "somebody who got some money from AT&T for something once picked their nose in a restaurant in the middle of Santiago's district."
I suppose the NN folks have to keep fanning the flames however they can now that the sky hasn't fallen.
I'm not opposed to this in principle, but isn't it technically a bill of attainer
No.
The classic definition for a bill of attainder is "A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial" (e.g., here).
Did ZTE receive a trial on this and we somehow all missed it? Specific citations welcome.
Why do you think you're at all qualified to determine the level of caution that is prudent?
Setting aside the fact that I didn't say I personally was qualified, are you suggesting that the manufacturer standing to profit from the therapy is in a better position to determine the prudent level of caution? Usually we prefer not to let the fox totally guard the henhouse.
The FDA's over abundance of caution has caused, to date, 15 million unnecessary deaths
If you'd prefer to nuke or effectively neuter the FDA, then call your congresscritter and advocate for that. Good luck.
I'm generally not big on layers of bureaucratic red tape, but for an emergent technology like this it seems absolutely appropriate to take an extra cautious approach for the moment.
First, the braking distance from 60 mph to 0 changed from 152 feets to 133 feets. We're talking about a 12.5% improvement so it's not like the brake were completely unsafe neither.
Also, if you took the time to read TFA, you'll have learned that the issue were about the Anti-lock braking systems not aggressive enough. Not exactly a simple "bit 0 to 1" fix, it would take a lot of on-road testing to find the most optimal value.
Let's flip that around: How much on-the-road testing could they really have done if they now were able to eke out a 12.5% improvement in a matter of days?
The real story here is that Tesla has XYZ,000 cars out on the road designed by people who collectively decided that the proper response to the driver flooring the brake pedal should be something other than bringing the car to a stop as quickly and safely as possible.
Oh, and as soon as someone brought that clearly unintuitive design requirement to their attention, they somehow were able to address it in a matter of days. Just like any other pesky little bug fix, right?
Wouldn't you want the lawyer on your side to be the one who will do every (legal) thing possible to help you win? Maybe not, but a lot of people will think that way.
Some people do indeed want that, but they really shouldn't.
There are many things that are legal that aren't ethical. There are many things that are legal and ethical that will just plain tick off the judge and make them look for ways to rule against you. And putting all that aside, some tactics are just plain disproportionately expensive for their potential upside.
Truly good lawyers pick their battles to keep all of the above factors in balance while still maximizing the odds of a good result.
Et tu? First, the CNBC link that you claim is "the original article" is dated a day later than the Mashable article you provided upthread. Second, the Mashable article was honest enough to appeal to the original Politico article from 2016 -- the CNBC article doesn't even pretend to cite a source.
Again, if Politico or anyone else really got their hands on a copy of the application, there would be plenty of copies out in the wild for all to howl over. Ponder for a quick moment why that isn't the case.
When you strip away the reference to the original Politico article that claimed to quote from the actual application but conveniently failed to provide a copy, the only verifiable fact in your link is that Trump wants to build walls to control erosion that's actually happening today.
If you're presenting that as evidence that he believes in climate change, what does that say about all the environmental groups that oppose the walls?
Simply, there is no harm in a car manufacturer naming their driver assistance system autopilot if they give a mandatory safety lecture to the owner before enabling the feature, which in fact they do and always have done. Ignorance is no excuse, because the buyers are relieved of their ignorance before using the feature.
Unless you're going to tell me that prior to a sale Tesla sits down with the owner and extensively talks them through it, makes them watch a safety video, and then take a test, or something like that, I expect your "mandatory safety lecture" is just another annoying, wordy pop-up to click through to get to the functionality you want. That gives the lawyers something to argue about, but at the end of the day is no substitute for actual training as exists on the aviation side.
And the silly thing about this is that the only reason we're arguing about things like damage control pop-ups is Elon Musk's ego. The bottom line is that a name like "autopilot" inherently sets expectations in the mind of an average person that a name like "driver assistance" does not, and if Elon and the rest of the apologists would step back and take an objective look at it instead of circling the wagons, they would have little choice but to agree.
It was neither "leaked" nor "rumours and innuendo". It was, and I quote, "the settlement agreement that was sent to class representatives
Actually, all we know is what electrek.co claimed it to be. And assuming that's actually what it was, I think we can agree electrek.co wasn't a class representative and therefore would not have legitimately received a copy. Thus, somebody leaked it to them.
Front page news! Hire a skywriter! Pay a bunch of Victorian-era urchins to run around in the streets shouting "Extra! Extra! Read all about it!"
Maybe you should follow Doug Field's lead and take some time off to recharge. Constantly carrying all this water for Elon seems to be wearing on you.
2. Because pilots are highly trained, they understand what an "autopilot" will and will not do for them. Generally agree, though there are of course exceptions.
3. American drivers are not highly trained, and therefore don't generally understand what an "autopilot" will or will not do for them. Agree.
4. Thus, there's no harm in a car manufacturer naming a highly limited driver assistance system "autopilot," and any overestimation of its capabilities by drivers based on that name is their own damn fault. Huh, what?
Literally, this settlement was first reported three and a half weeks ago [electrek.co] and it's still making headlines. It's getting ridiculous.
Read your electrek.co article carefully and deliberately. It was based on what they claimed to be a leaked copy of the proposed settlement agreement -- i.e., rumors and innuendo. Today's Reuters article was based on the proposed agreement actually filed with the court -- i.e., what's actually going forward.
Maybe try to back off the conspiracy theories just a touch and leave some room in your mind for critical thinking.
That faster growing plant produces grain (seeds) more quickly and in greater numbers.
There's actually an inverse relationship between leaf area and seed yield. The plant has a finite amount of energy it can devote to producing both. It's been well-understood in the farming community for ages that yield of grains, fruits, root vegetables, etc. can be maximized by selectively removing leaf mass at the proper time in the growth cycle, and the scientific community has stumbled on idea more recently.
Increased CO2 does increase photosynthesis and thus the total bucket of available energy, but only to a point. Farmers already space seeds to optimize for foliage/grain density, so at a given spacing larger plants/leaves end up shading each other and even their own lower/internal leaves, so the energy expenditure directed to leaves and away from seed can exceed the increased energy intake from photosynthesis.
Slashdot Mirror
Zero critical thinking capability.
Sorta like seeing the words "$60,000," "telecom sector," and "over his Assembly Career," and turning that into "AT&T dropped a $60,000 BRIBE."
Actually, that's more like anti-critical thinking -- squeezing your eyes shut to the actual facts because there's a rhetorical point you so desperately want to make.
Which is the same reason you're spending so much time spewing invective and pounding the table -- you have nothing whatsoever cogent to say. And I credit you with enough neural activity to understand that full well.
Buh bye.
Oh, come on. Your big smoking gun article is the one already provided in the summary? The one that piled up a bunch of innuendo in the place of actual facts, which they clearly didn't have? The one that says nothing about $60k, a bribe, or anything actually concrete?
I'd say you can do better, but I'm afraid you just confirmed you can't.
The info is on the dark web (and even some public outlets) for all to see.
I suppose that's why you graced us with a link to just one of those public outlets. *cough*
If these "financial ties" were anything even remotely damning, you know they'd be front and center.
Instead, we have a grab bag of stuff along the lines of "somebody who got some money from AT&T for something once picked their nose in a restaurant in the middle of Santiago's district."
I suppose the NN folks have to keep fanning the flames however they can now that the sky hasn't fallen.
basically saying that meditation makes you less motivated to put your nose to the grindstone for The Man.
Heavy stuff.
The classic definition for a bill of attainder is "A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial" (e.g., here).
Did ZTE receive a trial on this and we somehow all missed it? Specific citations welcome.
Damn. It would have been funny if there had been 720 or 722 less backers.
Or if you were dyslexic.
E.g., anyone had any trouble using Skype in Linux^W^W over the last year, versus 3-5 years ago?
FTFY. It's been astounding to me how they have somehow managed to make a video chat app nearly impossible to use for video chatting.
So if an algorithm "watches" a video of a good player, the algorithm's play approaches the level of the human. Hooray?
Why do you think you're at all qualified to determine the level of caution that is prudent?
Setting aside the fact that I didn't say I personally was qualified, are you suggesting that the manufacturer standing to profit from the therapy is in a better position to determine the prudent level of caution? Usually we prefer not to let the fox totally guard the henhouse.
The FDA's over abundance of caution has caused, to date, 15 million unnecessary deaths
If you'd prefer to nuke or effectively neuter the FDA, then call your congresscritter and advocate for that. Good luck.
I'm generally not big on layers of bureaucratic red tape, but for an emergent technology like this it seems absolutely appropriate to take an extra cautious approach for the moment.
First, the braking distance from 60 mph to 0 changed from 152 feets to 133 feets. We're talking about a 12.5% improvement so it's not like the brake were completely unsafe neither.
Also, if you took the time to read TFA, you'll have learned that the issue were about the Anti-lock braking systems not aggressive enough. Not exactly a simple "bit 0 to 1" fix, it would take a lot of on-road testing to find the most optimal value.
Let's flip that around: How much on-the-road testing could they really have done if they now were able to eke out a 12.5% improvement in a matter of days?
It sure must be confusing for you old folks
Says the person with "640k" in their handle.
The real story here is that Tesla has XYZ,000 cars out on the road designed by people who collectively decided that the proper response to the driver flooring the brake pedal should be something other than bringing the car to a stop as quickly and safely as possible.
Oh, and as soon as someone brought that clearly unintuitive design requirement to their attention, they somehow were able to address it in a matter of days. Just like any other pesky little bug fix, right?
This is madness.
DeBeers has literally trillions of carats of diamonds in their vaults
Given peak historic production of ~175 million carats/year, order of magnitude citation badly needed.
Wouldn't you want the lawyer on your side to be the one who will do every (legal) thing possible to help you win? Maybe not, but a lot of people will think that way.
Some people do indeed want that, but they really shouldn't.
There are many things that are legal that aren't ethical. There are many things that are legal and ethical that will just plain tick off the judge and make them look for ways to rule against you. And putting all that aside, some tactics are just plain disproportionately expensive for their potential upside.
Truly good lawyers pick their battles to keep all of the above factors in balance while still maximizing the odds of a good result.
Bullshit.
Et tu? First, the CNBC link that you claim is "the original article" is dated a day later than the Mashable article you provided upthread. Second, the Mashable article was honest enough to appeal to the original Politico article from 2016 -- the CNBC article doesn't even pretend to cite a source.
Again, if Politico or anyone else really got their hands on a copy of the application, there would be plenty of copies out in the wild for all to howl over. Ponder for a quick moment why that isn't the case.
Even the POTUS doesn't believe in climate change (induced by men)
Yes, he absolutely does.
When you strip away the reference to the original Politico article that claimed to quote from the actual application but conveniently failed to provide a copy, the only verifiable fact in your link is that Trump wants to build walls to control erosion that's actually happening today.
If you're presenting that as evidence that he believes in climate change, what does that say about all the environmental groups that oppose the walls?
Simply, there is no harm in a car manufacturer naming their driver assistance system autopilot if they give a mandatory safety lecture to the owner before enabling the feature, which in fact they do and always have done. Ignorance is no excuse, because the buyers are relieved of their ignorance before using the feature.
Unless you're going to tell me that prior to a sale Tesla sits down with the owner and extensively talks them through it, makes them watch a safety video, and then take a test, or something like that, I expect your "mandatory safety lecture" is just another annoying, wordy pop-up to click through to get to the functionality you want. That gives the lawyers something to argue about, but at the end of the day is no substitute for actual training as exists on the aviation side.
And the silly thing about this is that the only reason we're arguing about things like damage control pop-ups is Elon Musk's ego. The bottom line is that a name like "autopilot" inherently sets expectations in the mind of an average person that a name like "driver assistance" does not, and if Elon and the rest of the apologists would step back and take an objective look at it instead of circling the wagons, they would have little choice but to agree.
It was neither "leaked" nor "rumours and innuendo". It was, and I quote, "the settlement agreement that was sent to class representatives
Actually, all we know is what electrek.co claimed it to be. And assuming that's actually what it was, I think we can agree electrek.co wasn't a class representative and therefore would not have legitimately received a copy. Thus, somebody leaked it to them.
Front page news! Hire a skywriter! Pay a bunch of Victorian-era urchins to run around in the streets shouting "Extra! Extra! Read all about it!"
Maybe you should follow Doug Field's lead and take some time off to recharge. Constantly carrying all this water for Elon seems to be wearing on you.
Maybe the Tesla autopilot feature is just designed to cull out some of the stupid money.
It can't have escaped your home page that really dumb people can inexplicably have lots of money.
Ah, so if a reckless feature naming choice results in the death/serious bodily harm of people you don't like,* it's fine. Got it.
* Temporarily ignoring the other people involved in the accidents, who likely aren't members of the group you dislike.
So your argument in a nutshell:
1. Pilots are highly trained.
Agree.
2. Because pilots are highly trained, they understand what an "autopilot" will and will not do for them.
Generally agree, though there are of course exceptions.
3. American drivers are not highly trained, and therefore don't generally understand what an "autopilot" will or will not do for them.
Agree.
4. Thus, there's no harm in a car manufacturer naming a highly limited driver assistance system "autopilot," and any overestimation of its capabilities by drivers based on that name is their own damn fault.
Huh, what?
Literally, this settlement was first reported three and a half weeks ago [electrek.co] and it's still making headlines. It's getting ridiculous.
Read your electrek.co article carefully and deliberately. It was based on what they claimed to be a leaked copy of the proposed settlement agreement -- i.e., rumors and innuendo. Today's Reuters article was based on the proposed agreement actually filed with the court -- i.e., what's actually going forward.
Maybe try to back off the conspiracy theories just a touch and leave some room in your mind for critical thinking.
That faster growing plant produces grain (seeds) more quickly and in greater numbers.
There's actually an inverse relationship between leaf area and seed yield. The plant has a finite amount of energy it can devote to producing both. It's been well-understood in the farming community for ages that yield of grains, fruits, root vegetables, etc. can be maximized by selectively removing leaf mass at the proper time in the growth cycle, and the scientific community has stumbled on idea more recently.
Increased CO2 does increase photosynthesis and thus the total bucket of available energy, but only to a point. Farmers already space seeds to optimize for foliage/grain density, so at a given spacing larger plants/leaves end up shading each other and even their own lower/internal leaves, so the energy expenditure directed to leaves and away from seed can exceed the increased energy intake from photosynthesis.