I gather from your comment history that I probably just drew the short straw for this particular cut and paste "lesson" of yours, but you might go back and read the language I quoted a bit more carefully. The bit about "the price of fruit's going to be much higher" is, of course, alluding to increased wages..
But hey, thanks for reminding us of the reality of the demand curve. Well done.
Not too terribly long ago we were told these were jobs that Americans wouldn't do. Now apparently we're to believe they're jobs nobody will do:
Strawberry companies representing two-thirds of the industry are putting millions of dollars into this project. Gary Wishnatzki, the owner of Wish Farms, got the whole thing started. The reason, he says, is that it's getting more and more difficult to find enough people to pick his berries.
"The fact of the matter is, if we don't solve the problem of this labor shortage with automation, the industry's up for a big challenge ahead. The price of fruit's going to be much higher," he says.
His net worth went from 6.6B to 5.5B just this month. Sounds like he still held a good amount of FB stock, as you would expect. Wonder if he dumped it all to people buying the dip and is now able to speak freely (and also is a touch bitter from just having lost $1B over it).
Yes, GP is an ignorant fool. Slash moderation has ultimately served to reward posters who speak confidently about anything regardless of their knowledge.
Imagine the irony if your post were to get modded up.
If these assholes were actually anything other than disingenuous, overpaid lickspittles, they'd do something about Caller ID spoofing.
Um, they did exactly that last November. And even before they issued the new rules, they cracked down on two spoofing robocallers last year to the tune of $82 million and $120 million.
Maybe you would have known that had you spent just a bit more time actually reading up on the subject and a bit less time throwing around inflammatory rhetoric.
Pure robocalls really aren't the battlefront these days. The TCPA also applies to automated dialing systems that dial numbers until they find someone who picks up, and then connects the call to a human (the "hello?" . . . CLICK . . . pause . . . "Hello, am I speaking with [name]" routine). Companies that have legitimate reasons to call you want to use systems like this because they're a lot more efficient than having a human dial number after number trying to find people who are home/can pick up. The number of bureaucratic hoops they have to jump through and paper trail they have to retain just to make sure they're not exposing themselves to liability--simply because they're calling you, their established customer, but are using a system more efficient than a human punching digits on a phone--is dizzying.
TFA, and another poster, point out that this rule has been vacated (not just modified) so now there may be no legal restrictions on robocall devices.
Unless, of course, the current board passes a new regulation. [*crickets*]
TFA and the other poster clearly didn't read the opinion. The TCPA as a whole remains intact -- the only nuances that were rolled back were (1) the FCC's prior interpretation that smartphones constituted automated telephone dialing systems, and (2) the FCC's prior interpretation that companies using automatic dialers could be held liable for calling a phone number that used to be owned by someone who had given the company consent to call them, but then was (unbeknownst to the caller) transferred to someone else.
Meanwhile, as was all over the news at the time, the FCC actually issued MORE rules clamping down MORE on actual robocallers backinNovember. Crickets indeed.
I'm probably wasting my keystrokes since your post suggests you're more into trying to score cheap partisan points rather than actually understanding the issues, but one of the primary issues with overbroad laws with harsh penalties and one of the primary reasons courts strike them down (you realize this was a federal district court decision, not the FCC, right?) is the chilling effect they have on legitimate behavior.
Using smaller words, when the FCC states an intent to levy fines of $500 per "uninvited call" from a cell phone, a small business with no land line would have to feel exquisitely lucky to call someone from a cell phone who didn't call them first. The amount of explicit enforcement action says nothing about how many people simply forego behavior that everyone agrees should be lawful out of fear that they'll be one of the first examples.
If you read the court's opinion (or even the summary), it clearly says the FCC's overreach was considering "ordinary calls from any conventional smartphone" to fall under robocall regulation. Putting aside your obvious dislike of Pai, do you honestly believe they should?
Car accidents happen all the time, so you can just add up last year's damages and assume it will be similar next year.
That can be true for a well-established market with a lot of historical data. This isn't that kind of market, and it'll take a good amount of time to get enough data for actuaries to be comfortable that they're accurately pricing the risk. Until then, they'll either play it conservative and price high at the beginning, or they'll price low to get market share and then once the real risk numbers become better known we'll end up with a series of aggressive rate increases as we did with the ACA.
It's not clear which part you think was "wrong." Your self-serving article brags of ~2 million real-world miles a year -- that could be done by a fleet of less than 30 cars running 8 hours a day at an average of 25 MPH. To put that in even more perspective, total miles driven in the U.S. is over 3 trillion a year. And in any event, that says nothing in particular about the distribution of those miles, times of day, environmental conditions, etc., which was OP's point.
Agreed -- this is a harder problem than many people think, and we may as well get the complexity out on the table sooner rather than later so we can decide if this is a road we really want to go down.
Insurance probably will have to be priced according to the overall safety record of the particular car / guidance system, which will take some time to shake out and likely result in early adopters getting soaked. It's possible we may belly up and decide to subsidize the liability/insurance piece to encourage adoption, but to get people to expend that sort of political capital there will have to be evidence of clear benefit that I don't think we're yet close to seeing.
And yet, in most cases now they're orders of magnitude safer than the distracted meatbag texting away on their iPhone. Or the late-night drunk trying to make it home from the bar without getting caught.
I'd love to understand your basis for saying that since they're not in widespread enough use to have generated any sort of meaningful statistics. And to OP's point, this may well have been one of the first situations where someone threw an autonomous vehicle a serious curveball. If so, that's at least an order of magnitude in the wrong direction.
Instead of sending everybody on the same route, send them probabilistically. I suspect Waze already does that, verified several times experimentally.
It may have changed more recently, but for the past several years when driving medium-range routes in certain parts of the city it's been very common to find myself in an obvious "Waze pack" of several cars making exactly the same (completely arbitrary and unintuitive) series of several turns through residential areas to avoid congested secondary streets. There must be literally hundreds of potential routes through gridded neighborhoods like that with roughly the same transit times, so it would be awesome if they've taken steps to spread traffic across them.
Some people are in bad shape and need medical attention or at least monitoring during their ride to the hospital. They clearly shouldn't be using Uber.
But others are stable and just need a ride. They clearly shouldn't be tying up an ambulance that someone else actually needs. In fact, Phoenix has a program where the fire department calls (and pays for) a cab for people like this who call 911.
So a bright-line rule for Uber drivers not to take people to hospitals would be bad. And as noted in the article but cropped from the summary, people take taxis to the hospital all the time. Both taxi and Uber drivers need to (gasp) use their judgment to decide whether to take a given passenger on a given ride. This sort of situation doesn't seem any different.
once more EVs are sold and charged at home, they can become part of the grid backup plan. same as once more homes have solar with battery backup, they also become part of the grid
Wait, so leaving my EV plugged in overnight would no longer guarantee it would be fully charged when I need to use it, and indeed it actually could be largely discharged depending on other people's consumption patterns that I have no control over? That sounds about as workable as making everyone's pantry part of the grocery store.
As described here, it's mainly about trying to keep so many people from getting up and standing in line all at the same time and clogging up the walkways. Group 1 boards through lane 1 and group 2 through lane 2, then groups 3/4/5 board through lane 2 while group 1/2 stragglers continue through lane 1.
The only part where they're experimenting with altering boarding order according to window/middle/aisle position is people in groups 3/4/5. So query though how much this really changes things when the majority of most flights are groups 1 and 2. (It probably helps a bit given that the group 3/4/5 crowd tends to be less frequent travelers who don't tend to board as efficiently on average. But making families who are sitting together board separately is probably going to create chaos/inefficiencies of its own, so who knows if there's a net benefit at the end of the day.)
As part of the incentive for whistleblowers to come forward, Dodd-Frank's bounty provisions award 10-30% of the money recovered from a securities violation to the whistleblower that first reported the violation to the SEC, for sanctions of $1 million or more.
If the employee doesn't think the situation is clear-cut enough to have a shot at cashing in on that bounty and yet chooses to raise it internally in the company, there's no reason the government should be in the position of protecting their job. To do otherwise would at the very least create a perverse incentive for employees to try to blackmail their employers over conduct they know or suspect isn't really a SEC violation but will cost the company a lot of time and money to defend to reach that result.
I would imagine that there is some sort of override when the driver continues to press on the accelerator or increases. What's really going on is probably in 22% of the time despite warnings and automatic breaking, the driver's actions override the car and continue to back into objects.
If human overrides were factored in to the 78%, I agree that would probably represent close to ideal performance for the automated system. But the underlying article reads to me like the 78% was the result of a suite of fully automated tests.
You don't want it to prevent you from backing up on false positives.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like everyone involved (the driver, the insurance company, the kid you're about to hit) would prefer a system like this to bias toward false positives rather than false negatives.
Here's one way straightforward way you could achieve that: Automated system thinks it sees something and stops. I the human driver look at the backup camera and see there isn't really anything (or now isn't -- maybe something ran/blew by), clear the alarm, and slowly but deliberately press on the accelerator pedal to proceed without the automated braking. At that point, if something really is there, it's on me. That doesn't seem particularly complicated, unintuitive, or undesirable. For people that are pissed about having to back up twice on great occasion, they can disable the system and again assume the risk of doing that. But that's far better on balance than turning on and blindly relying on a system that it turns out isn't all that reliable (this current system, Tesla's autopilot, etc.).
The more specialized the problems become, the bigger specialists we become, the more we all seem to assume we're experts outside of our silos.
That's one possible explanation (one premised on a worldview somewhere between elitist and defeatist, in my opinion). But Occam would suggest the real reason is sub-par architecture/design assumptions/coding or some combination thereof (maybe even due to a bunch of siloed "specialists" all implementing little subcomponents that all work perfectly according to some specification drafted in a vacuum by people that didn't ever stand back and do a basic sanity check on how the overall system would work based on their design assumptions).
Nothing trivial about this kind of image recognition.
It's not image recognition. TFA (and indeed TFS) describes it as "backup warning sensors" -- presumably ultrasonic range sensors. 78% actually seems pretty pathetic for that kind of basic, well-understood technology.
2) There are 24 cities in the US with worse rates of murder and gun crime than Chicago
As I mentioned in the other thread, you're apparently stuck in 2015. Chicago murders have skyrocketed since then, far disproportionately to the rest of the country. News coverage on this over the past couple of years has not exactly been obscure.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to remember wages in this discussion.
I gather from your comment history that I probably just drew the short straw for this particular cut and paste "lesson" of yours, but you might go back and read the language I quoted a bit more carefully. The bit about "the price of fruit's going to be much higher" is, of course, alluding to increased wages..
But hey, thanks for reminding us of the reality of the demand curve. Well done.
Not too terribly long ago we were told these were jobs that Americans wouldn't do. Now apparently we're to believe they're jobs nobody will do:
Strawberry companies representing two-thirds of the industry are putting millions of dollars into this project. Gary Wishnatzki, the owner of Wish Farms, got the whole thing started. The reason, he says, is that it's getting more and more difficult to find enough people to pick his berries.
"The fact of the matter is, if we don't solve the problem of this labor shortage with automation, the industry's up for a big challenge ahead. The price of fruit's going to be much higher," he says.
His net worth went from 6.6B to 5.5B just this month. Sounds like he still held a good amount of FB stock, as you would expect. Wonder if he dumped it all to people buying the dip and is now able to speak freely (and also is a touch bitter from just having lost $1B over it).
Yes, GP is an ignorant fool. Slash moderation has ultimately served to reward posters who speak confidently about anything regardless of their knowledge.
Imagine the irony if your post were to get modded up.
If these assholes were actually anything other than disingenuous, overpaid lickspittles, they'd do something about Caller ID spoofing.
Um, they did exactly that last November. And even before they issued the new rules, they cracked down on two spoofing robocallers last year to the tune of $82 million and $120 million.
Maybe you would have known that had you spent just a bit more time actually reading up on the subject and a bit less time throwing around inflammatory rhetoric.
Pure robocalls really aren't the battlefront these days. The TCPA also applies to automated dialing systems that dial numbers until they find someone who picks up, and then connects the call to a human (the "hello?" . . . CLICK . . . pause . . . "Hello, am I speaking with [name]" routine). Companies that have legitimate reasons to call you want to use systems like this because they're a lot more efficient than having a human dial number after number trying to find people who are home/can pick up. The number of bureaucratic hoops they have to jump through and paper trail they have to retain just to make sure they're not exposing themselves to liability--simply because they're calling you, their established customer, but are using a system more efficient than a human punching digits on a phone--is dizzying.
TFA, and another poster, point out that this rule has been vacated (not just modified) so now there may be no legal restrictions on robocall devices.
Unless, of course, the current board passes a new regulation. [*crickets*]
TFA and the other poster clearly didn't read the opinion. The TCPA as a whole remains intact -- the only nuances that were rolled back were (1) the FCC's prior interpretation that smartphones constituted automated telephone dialing systems, and (2) the FCC's prior interpretation that companies using automatic dialers could be held liable for calling a phone number that used to be owned by someone who had given the company consent to call them, but then was (unbeknownst to the caller) transferred to someone else.
Meanwhile, as was all over the news at the time, the FCC actually issued MORE rules clamping down MORE on actual robocallers back in November. Crickets indeed.
I'm probably wasting my keystrokes since your post suggests you're more into trying to score cheap partisan points rather than actually understanding the issues, but one of the primary issues with overbroad laws with harsh penalties and one of the primary reasons courts strike them down (you realize this was a federal district court decision, not the FCC, right?) is the chilling effect they have on legitimate behavior.
Using smaller words, when the FCC states an intent to levy fines of $500 per "uninvited call" from a cell phone, a small business with no land line would have to feel exquisitely lucky to call someone from a cell phone who didn't call them first. The amount of explicit enforcement action says nothing about how many people simply forego behavior that everyone agrees should be lawful out of fear that they'll be one of the first examples.
If you read the court's opinion (or even the summary), it clearly says the FCC's overreach was considering "ordinary calls from any conventional smartphone" to fall under robocall regulation. Putting aside your obvious dislike of Pai, do you honestly believe they should?
Dry humour is the best kind. Well done.
Car accidents happen all the time, so you can just add up last year's damages and assume it will be similar next year.
That can be true for a well-established market with a lot of historical data. This isn't that kind of market, and it'll take a good amount of time to get enough data for actuaries to be comfortable that they're accurately pricing the risk. Until then, they'll either play it conservative and price high at the beginning, or they'll price low to get market share and then once the real risk numbers become better known we'll end up with a series of aggressive rate increases as we did with the ACA.
It's not clear which part you think was "wrong." Your self-serving article brags of ~2 million real-world miles a year -- that could be done by a fleet of less than 30 cars running 8 hours a day at an average of 25 MPH. To put that in even more perspective, total miles driven in the U.S. is over 3 trillion a year. And in any event, that says nothing in particular about the distribution of those miles, times of day, environmental conditions, etc., which was OP's point.
Agreed -- this is a harder problem than many people think, and we may as well get the complexity out on the table sooner rather than later so we can decide if this is a road we really want to go down.
Insurance probably will have to be priced according to the overall safety record of the particular car / guidance system, which will take some time to shake out and likely result in early adopters getting soaked. It's possible we may belly up and decide to subsidize the liability/insurance piece to encourage adoption, but to get people to expend that sort of political capital there will have to be evidence of clear benefit that I don't think we're yet close to seeing.
And yet, in most cases now they're orders of magnitude safer than the distracted meatbag texting away on their iPhone. Or the late-night drunk trying to make it home from the bar without getting caught.
I'd love to understand your basis for saying that since they're not in widespread enough use to have generated any sort of meaningful statistics. And to OP's point, this may well have been one of the first situations where someone threw an autonomous vehicle a serious curveball. If so, that's at least an order of magnitude in the wrong direction.
Instead of sending everybody on the same route, send them probabilistically. I suspect Waze already does that, verified several times experimentally.
It may have changed more recently, but for the past several years when driving medium-range routes in certain parts of the city it's been very common to find myself in an obvious "Waze pack" of several cars making exactly the same (completely arbitrary and unintuitive) series of several turns through residential areas to avoid congested secondary streets. There must be literally hundreds of potential routes through gridded neighborhoods like that with roughly the same transit times, so it would be awesome if they've taken steps to spread traffic across them.
Some people are in bad shape and need medical attention or at least monitoring during their ride to the hospital. They clearly shouldn't be using Uber.
But others are stable and just need a ride. They clearly shouldn't be tying up an ambulance that someone else actually needs. In fact, Phoenix has a program where the fire department calls (and pays for) a cab for people like this who call 911.
So a bright-line rule for Uber drivers not to take people to hospitals would be bad. And as noted in the article but cropped from the summary, people take taxis to the hospital all the time. Both taxi and Uber drivers need to (gasp) use their judgment to decide whether to take a given passenger on a given ride. This sort of situation doesn't seem any different.
once more EVs are sold and charged at home, they can become part of the grid backup plan. same as once more homes have solar with battery backup, they also become part of the grid
Wait, so leaving my EV plugged in overnight would no longer guarantee it would be fully charged when I need to use it, and indeed it actually could be largely discharged depending on other people's consumption patterns that I have no control over? That sounds about as workable as making everyone's pantry part of the grocery store.
For years credit card companies allowed people to be defrauded because it was cheaper for them.
Actually, for years the major credit card companies have had zero-liability policies for fraud. Do you own/use a credit card?
As described here, it's mainly about trying to keep so many people from getting up and standing in line all at the same time and clogging up the walkways. Group 1 boards through lane 1 and group 2 through lane 2, then groups 3/4/5 board through lane 2 while group 1/2 stragglers continue through lane 1.
The only part where they're experimenting with altering boarding order according to window/middle/aisle position is people in groups 3/4/5. So query though how much this really changes things when the majority of most flights are groups 1 and 2. (It probably helps a bit given that the group 3/4/5 crowd tends to be less frequent travelers who don't tend to board as efficiently on average. But making families who are sitting together board separately is probably going to create chaos/inefficiencies of its own, so who knows if there's a net benefit at the end of the day.)
As part of the incentive for whistleblowers to come forward, Dodd-Frank's bounty provisions award 10-30% of the money recovered from a securities violation to the whistleblower that first reported the violation to the SEC, for sanctions of $1 million or more.
If the employee doesn't think the situation is clear-cut enough to have a shot at cashing in on that bounty and yet chooses to raise it internally in the company, there's no reason the government should be in the position of protecting their job. To do otherwise would at the very least create a perverse incentive for employees to try to blackmail their employers over conduct they know or suspect isn't really a SEC violation but will cost the company a lot of time and money to defend to reach that result.
I would imagine that there is some sort of override when the driver continues to press on the accelerator or increases. What's really going on is probably in 22% of the time despite warnings and automatic breaking, the driver's actions override the car and continue to back into objects.
If human overrides were factored in to the 78%, I agree that would probably represent close to ideal performance for the automated system. But the underlying article reads to me like the 78% was the result of a suite of fully automated tests.
You don't want it to prevent you from backing up on false positives.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like everyone involved (the driver, the insurance company, the kid you're about to hit) would prefer a system like this to bias toward false positives rather than false negatives.
Here's one way straightforward way you could achieve that: Automated system thinks it sees something and stops. I the human driver look at the backup camera and see there isn't really anything (or now isn't -- maybe something ran/blew by), clear the alarm, and slowly but deliberately press on the accelerator pedal to proceed without the automated braking. At that point, if something really is there, it's on me. That doesn't seem particularly complicated, unintuitive, or undesirable. For people that are pissed about having to back up twice on great occasion, they can disable the system and again assume the risk of doing that. But that's far better on balance than turning on and blindly relying on a system that it turns out isn't all that reliable (this current system, Tesla's autopilot, etc.).
The more specialized the problems become, the bigger specialists we become, the more we all seem to assume we're experts outside of our silos.
That's one possible explanation (one premised on a worldview somewhere between elitist and defeatist, in my opinion). But Occam would suggest the real reason is sub-par architecture/design assumptions/coding or some combination thereof (maybe even due to a bunch of siloed "specialists" all implementing little subcomponents that all work perfectly according to some specification drafted in a vacuum by people that didn't ever stand back and do a basic sanity check on how the overall system would work based on their design assumptions).
Nothing trivial about this kind of image recognition.
It's not image recognition. TFA (and indeed TFS) describes it as "backup warning sensors" -- presumably ultrasonic range sensors. 78% actually seems pretty pathetic for that kind of basic, well-understood technology.
Chicago murder rate went down in 2017.
Went down from a ~65% increase from 2015 to a ~40% increase from 2015. Your point?
2) There are 24 cities in the US with worse rates of murder and gun crime than Chicago
As I mentioned in the other thread, you're apparently stuck in 2015. Chicago murders have skyrocketed since then, far disproportionately to the rest of the country. News coverage on this over the past couple of years has not exactly been obscure.