So adter decades and decades of work people figured out Ulcers were bacterial not a defect in proteins coating the stomach walls..
Just a minor correction so no reader is misinformed: So after decades and decades of work, people figured out ulcers can be caused by a certain bacterium.
When I first replied nearly six hours ago, this nonsense had only attracted one reflexive "informative" mod.
After I and five other people pointed out how parent is laughably, demonstrably incorrect (including actual supporting citations), it continued to get modded all the way to +5.
Slashdot - half truth for nerds.
Thanks for doing your part to keep that average low.
GMT is *not* a reference time zone. It used to be decades ago, but since GMT is subject to DST like the rest of Europe, it no longer serves that purpose.
Had you spent 30 seconds looking for a source to cite for this, you would have discovered you're simply wrong. Here are the actual facts, right from the horse's mouth:
Greenwich Mean Time or GMT is the clock time at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, London. It is the same all year round and is not affected by Summer Time or Daylight Saving Time. * * * GMT is also a time zone, used by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) when Daylight Saving Time is not in use, from October to March.
GMT is still widely used as the standard time against which all the other time zones in the world are referenced.
That's all very interesting but doesn't appear to speak to the sort of issue raised in GP's article, where the repair shop (1) had to replace an entire body panel rather than just fixing the dent as would be the case with just about any other automobile, and (2) to replace that panel, had to disassemble a substantial portion of that side of the car. The estimate had over 25 hours for body labor -- over 3 days -- and another 16 hours -- 2 days -- to paint it. That's utterly ridiculous for a minor dent in a mass-production car.
My broader point is that it's eminently possible to be too clever in design, to the detriment of repairability. Folks around here get that just fine when it comes to replacing the battery in an iPhone. And there isn't a miniaturization race for cars, so regardless of whether you think that's a good excuse for making that sort of tradeoff, it certainly doesn't apply here.
I don't disagree with a thing you just said, but I take it you didn't read the article GP linked to or read my comment particularly closely since both were focused on mechanical assembly/repair, not electronic issues.
Wow. So apparently now cars are going to be like smartphones or other electronic gadgets -- everything is too-cleverly designed such that you can't repair individual components (here a small dent in the quarter panel), so you have to remove and replace the whole piece (here thus having to disassemble much of that side of the car in the process). I suppose that's not a terribly surprising result for a car designed from the ground up by Silicon Valley.
Of course they will not just use this data to provide interactive video but to provide all manner of feedback for other purposes as well (to "tailor the user experience")
Ads, political content, news stories, and on and on. Just the next step in sculpting your own individual rendition of reality.
DJI's complaint was based, among other things, on the video testing impact at a combined speed of 238 MPH rather than what the letter admitted would be a possible combined speed of 233.5 MPH (~200 MPH for the Mooney M20j, which was actually marketed as the "201" for that reason, and 33.5MPH for the drone). Big whoop. I have significant doubts that decreasing the impact speed by 2% would make a material difference in the frankly shocking amount of damage to the wing shown in the video.
The rest of the complaints in the letter essentially devolve into the testing not being constrained enough (e.g., a bunch of technical arguments about how rare that sort of combined airspeed should be in the real world, how it supposedly exceeds the FAA impact testing standards, etc.) I recall similar wailing from the automakers when researchers first started testing offset collisions rather than the currently government-sanctioned and unrealistic direct head-on collisions.
We have the new technology right now. The discussion was about adopting that new technology to such a pervasive extent that people still wanting to use older technology are termed "sentimental."
Self driving cars will likely have near zero insurance premiums for the occupants of said vehicle since they are not actually driving it.
Coverage for accidents (which I presume you aren't suggesting will completely go away or even diminish all that much -- if so, that's a separate discussion) will have to come from somewhere. To the extent it falls on the manufacturers, they'll just pass the savings along via the sales price. And it would surprise me if we would suddenly decide to shift to a legal regime where the owners/operators of a device would be fully insulated from liability due to an accident caused by a machine they owned, maintained (or not), were currently causing to be out on the road when the accident happened, etc. If there's still a realistic potential for lawsuits, there will still be a healthy market for insurance.
should only be surprised that it took this long for this sort of steaming pile to be breached. Or in a way that left enough breadcrumbs for someone to notice, anyway.
1. Autonomous cars will ever materially exceed the current range of safety/efficiency tradeoff where human drivers are now, or we as a society decide we're OK materially changing that range.
2. Even if/when (1) appears to become true, we sufficiently address the single-point-of-failure issues in current systems such that a general failure of GPS, comm, traffic, etc. won't cause the entire transport system to grind to a halt until it's restored.
3. Even if/when (1) and (2) appear to become true, we sufficiently address security issues in current systems to prevent malicious actors from causing catastrophic accidents from localized, regional, or broader disruptions.
3. Even if/when (1), (2) and (3) appear to become true, we as a society decide we want to cede that level of control by moving to a system it's nigh unto impossible to walk back if future developments suddenly cause (1), (2), and/or (3) to no longer be true.
My first thought was this was just like the Uber car in Arizona, where the so-called "safety driver" was too busy staring at a screen to actually watch the road. But if you believe the original New Yorker article, this was even worse -- he may have actually been deliberately sitting there letting the situation play out for his benefit:
Levandowski, rather than being cowed by the incident, later defended it as an invaluable source of data, an opportunity to learn how to avoid similar mistakes. He sent colleagues an e-mail with video of the near-collision. Its subject line was “Prius vs. Camry.”
And we're supposed to ignore the (contradicting), actually peer-reviewed research in the process.
A task made even easier by you declining to actually cite any. I see you did take the time to paste in a "look at something cool Tesla is doing" link, though.
Re: It takes the occasional fail.
on
YouTube is Down
·
· Score: 1
I think the broader point is that "we" (as a society) are acting less and less like large, catastrophic failures can happen by continuing to push to put more and more eggs into technological baskets. See, for example, self-driving cars, particularly those with any sort of reliance on an always-on data feed or any level of centralized control.
What exactly does a private megayacht contribute to the world?
About as much as flinging a vanity car into space. Or selling overpriced flamethrowers. I'm sure you yourself could make that list a lot longer with a modicum of intellectual honesty. It's cute how you want to cherry-pick Allen's sillier stuff but focus only on the supposedly meaningful contributions from your god.
Maybe if he had spent $250m on cancer research rather than his "Octopus" megayacht
Hang on just a second. The notorious Elon Musk fangrrrrrrl is passing judgment on a mega-wealthy person flinging around big piles of money on stupid ego-driven stuff?
(which spent several weeks a couple years ago ruining the views in our harbour)
Ah, stupid ego-driven stuff that briefly clutters up your backyard. Got it.
The Model 3 "sales" metric right now is actually how many he's able to produce to satisfy purchasing decisions people made a long time ago, not how many people went out and made a purchasing decision today.
I don't see how the head-to-head comparison against current sales data of other cars could be meaningful without knowing whether the Model 3 waiting list is growing, shrinking, or staying about the same.
I know it's Mother Jones, but how in the world do you twist the actual text into that kind of soundbite?
In addition, this proposed regulation is designed to increase transparency of the assumptions underlying dose response models. As a case in point, there is growing empirical evidence of non-linearity in the concentration-response function for specific pollutants and health effects. The use of default models, without consideration of alternatives or model uncertainty, can obscure the scientific justification for EPA actions. To be even more transparent about these complex relationships, EPA should give appropriate consideration to high quality studies that explore: A broad class of parametric concentration-response models with a robust set of potential confounding variables; nonparametric models that incorporate fewer assumptions; various threshold models across the exposure range; and spatial heterogeneity. EPA should also incorporate the concept of model uncertainty when needed as a default to optimize low dose risk estimation based on major competing models, including linear, threshold, and U-shaped, J-shaped, and bell-shaped models.
No wonder they didn't quote the actual language in the article.
Not that Mother Jones went out of their way to make clear exactly what they were talking about, but I think it's this one:
In addition, this proposed regulation is designed to increase transparency of the assumptions underlying dose response models. As a case in point, there is growing empirical evidence of non-linearity in the concentration-response function for specific pollutants and health effects. The use of default models, without consideration of alternatives or model uncertainty, can obscure the scientific justification for EPA actions. To be even more transparent about these complex relationships, EPA should give appropriate consideration to high quality studies that explore: A broad class of parametric concentration-response models with a robust set of potential confounding variables; nonparametric models that incorporate fewer assumptions; various threshold models across the exposure range; and spatial heterogeneity. EPA should also incorporate the concept of model uncertainty when needed as a default to optimize low dose risk estimation based on major competing models, including linear, threshold, and U-shaped, J-shaped, and bell-shaped models.
To the extent the EPA really was taking studies measuring harm at at exposure level X and assuming 50% of the harm at exposure level X/2, I'm not sure why anyone would disagree with the above. (For all we know, more robust studies might find a greater level of harm at smaller exposures than a linear interpolation would assume.)
Slashdot Mirror
Too many damn rats in this world anyway.
Three or four companies file half of *all* patent suits.
Names, please? Remember this is all public information, so it's easy enough to cite (and/or verify).
So adter decades and decades of work people figured out Ulcers were bacterial not a defect in proteins coating the stomach walls..
Just a minor correction so no reader is misinformed: So after decades and decades of work, people figured out ulcers can be caused by a certain bacterium.
And by "can be" you really mean is in more than 90% of cases.
Just so no reader is misinformed.
When I first replied nearly six hours ago, this nonsense had only attracted one reflexive "informative" mod.
After I and five other people pointed out how parent is laughably, demonstrably incorrect (including actual supporting citations), it continued to get modded all the way to +5.
Slashdot - half truth for nerds.
Thanks for doing your part to keep that average low.
GMT is *not* a reference time zone. It used to be decades ago, but since GMT is subject to DST like the rest of Europe, it no longer serves that purpose.
Had you spent 30 seconds looking for a source to cite for this, you would have discovered you're simply wrong. Here are the actual facts, right from the horse's mouth:
Greenwich Mean Time or GMT is the clock time at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, London. It is the same all year round and is not affected by Summer Time or Daylight Saving Time .
* * *
GMT is also a time zone, used by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) when Daylight Saving Time is not in use , from October to March.
GMT is still widely used as the standard time against which all the other time zones in the world are referenced .
That's all very interesting but doesn't appear to speak to the sort of issue raised in GP's article, where the repair shop (1) had to replace an entire body panel rather than just fixing the dent as would be the case with just about any other automobile, and (2) to replace that panel, had to disassemble a substantial portion of that side of the car. The estimate had over 25 hours for body labor -- over 3 days -- and another 16 hours -- 2 days -- to paint it. That's utterly ridiculous for a minor dent in a mass-production car.
My broader point is that it's eminently possible to be too clever in design, to the detriment of repairability. Folks around here get that just fine when it comes to replacing the battery in an iPhone. And there isn't a miniaturization race for cars, so regardless of whether you think that's a good excuse for making that sort of tradeoff, it certainly doesn't apply here.
I don't disagree with a thing you just said, but I take it you didn't read the article GP linked to or read my comment particularly closely since both were focused on mechanical assembly/repair, not electronic issues.
Cars are more expensive because fewer and fewer people can afford them.
I think my head just exploded.
Wow. So apparently now cars are going to be like smartphones or other electronic gadgets -- everything is too-cleverly designed such that you can't repair individual components (here a small dent in the quarter panel), so you have to remove and replace the whole piece (here thus having to disassemble much of that side of the car in the process). I suppose that's not a terribly surprising result for a car designed from the ground up by Silicon Valley.
Of course they will not just use this data to provide interactive video but to provide all manner of feedback for other purposes as well (to "tailor the user experience")
Ads, political content, news stories, and on and on. Just the next step in sculpting your own individual rendition of reality.
Always remember, kids: just because they're out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid.
It makes me want to vomit. Its the worst scent/flavor ever. Not suitable for anything imo. Should be BANNED!
Damn, dude, did you misplace your Valium?
DJI's complaint was based, among other things, on the video testing impact at a combined speed of 238 MPH rather than what the letter admitted would be a possible combined speed of 233.5 MPH (~200 MPH for the Mooney M20j, which was actually marketed as the "201" for that reason, and 33.5MPH for the drone). Big whoop. I have significant doubts that decreasing the impact speed by 2% would make a material difference in the frankly shocking amount of damage to the wing shown in the video.
The rest of the complaints in the letter essentially devolve into the testing not being constrained enough (e.g., a bunch of technical arguments about how rare that sort of combined airspeed should be in the real world, how it supposedly exceeds the FAA impact testing standards, etc.) I recall similar wailing from the automakers when researchers first started testing offset collisions rather than the currently government-sanctioned and unrealistic direct head-on collisions.
We have the new technology right now. The discussion was about adopting that new technology to such a pervasive extent that people still wanting to use older technology are termed "sentimental."
Self driving cars will likely have near zero insurance premiums for the occupants of said vehicle since they are not actually driving it.
Coverage for accidents (which I presume you aren't suggesting will completely go away or even diminish all that much -- if so, that's a separate discussion) will have to come from somewhere. To the extent it falls on the manufacturers, they'll just pass the savings along via the sales price. And it would surprise me if we would suddenly decide to shift to a legal regime where the owners/operators of a device would be fully insulated from liability due to an accident caused by a machine they owned, maintained (or not), were currently causing to be out on the road when the accident happened, etc. If there's still a realistic potential for lawsuits, there will still be a healthy market for insurance.
should only be surprised that it took this long for this sort of steaming pile to be breached. Or in a way that left enough breadcrumbs for someone to notice, anyway.
1. Autonomous cars will ever materially exceed the current range of safety/efficiency tradeoff where human drivers are now, or we as a society decide we're OK materially changing that range.
2. Even if/when (1) appears to become true, we sufficiently address the single-point-of-failure issues in current systems such that a general failure of GPS, comm, traffic, etc. won't cause the entire transport system to grind to a halt until it's restored.
3. Even if/when (1) and (2) appear to become true, we sufficiently address security issues in current systems to prevent malicious actors from causing catastrophic accidents from localized, regional, or broader disruptions.
3. Even if/when (1), (2) and (3) appear to become true, we as a society decide we want to cede that level of control by moving to a system it's nigh unto impossible to walk back if future developments suddenly cause (1), (2), and/or (3) to no longer be true.
Until then, s/sentimental/pragmatic/g.
My first thought was this was just like the Uber car in Arizona, where the so-called "safety driver" was too busy staring at a screen to actually watch the road. But if you believe the original New Yorker article, this was even worse -- he may have actually been deliberately sitting there letting the situation play out for his benefit:
Levandowski, rather than being cowed by the incident, later defended it as an invaluable source of data, an opportunity to learn how to avoid similar mistakes . He sent colleagues an e-mail with video of the near-collision. Its subject line was “Prius vs. Camry.”
That's fairly disturbing if true.
And we're supposed to ignore the (contradicting), actually peer-reviewed research in the process.
A task made even easier by you declining to actually cite any. I see you did take the time to paste in a "look at something cool Tesla is doing" link, though.
I think the broader point is that "we" (as a society) are acting less and less like large, catastrophic failures can happen by continuing to push to put more and more eggs into technological baskets. See, for example, self-driving cars, particularly those with any sort of reliance on an always-on data feed or any level of centralized control.
What exactly does a private megayacht contribute to the world?
About as much as flinging a vanity car into space. Or selling overpriced flamethrowers. I'm sure you yourself could make that list a lot longer with a modicum of intellectual honesty. It's cute how you want to cherry-pick Allen's sillier stuff but focus only on the supposedly meaningful contributions from your god.
Maybe if he had spent $250m on cancer research rather than his "Octopus" megayacht
Hang on just a second. The notorious Elon Musk fangrrrrrrl is passing judgment on a mega-wealthy person flinging around big piles of money on stupid ego-driven stuff?
(which spent several weeks a couple years ago ruining the views in our harbour)
Ah, stupid ego-driven stuff that briefly clutters up your backyard. Got it.
The Model 3 "sales" metric right now is actually how many he's able to produce to satisfy purchasing decisions people made a long time ago, not how many people went out and made a purchasing decision today.
I don't see how the head-to-head comparison against current sales data of other cars could be meaningful without knowing whether the Model 3 waiting list is growing, shrinking, or staying about the same.
I know it's Mother Jones, but how in the world do you twist the actual text into that kind of soundbite?
In addition, this proposed regulation is designed to increase transparency of the assumptions underlying dose response models. As a case in point, there is growing empirical evidence of non-linearity in the concentration-response function for specific pollutants and health effects. The use of default models, without consideration of alternatives or model uncertainty, can obscure the scientific justification for EPA actions. To be even more transparent about these complex relationships, EPA should give appropriate consideration to high quality studies that explore: A broad class of parametric concentration-response models with a robust set of potential confounding variables; nonparametric models that incorporate fewer assumptions; various threshold models across the exposure range; and spatial heterogeneity. EPA should also incorporate the concept of model uncertainty when needed as a default to optimize low dose risk estimation based on major competing models, including linear, threshold, and U-shaped, J-shaped, and bell-shaped models.
No wonder they didn't quote the actual language in the article.
Not that Mother Jones went out of their way to make clear exactly what they were talking about, but I think it's this one:
In addition, this proposed regulation is designed to increase transparency of the assumptions underlying dose response models. As a case in point, there is growing empirical evidence of non-linearity in the concentration-response function for specific pollutants and health effects. The use of default models, without consideration of alternatives or model uncertainty, can obscure the scientific justification for EPA actions. To be even more transparent about these complex relationships, EPA should give appropriate consideration to high quality studies that explore: A broad class of parametric concentration-response models with a robust set of potential confounding variables; nonparametric models that incorporate fewer assumptions; various threshold models across the exposure range; and spatial heterogeneity. EPA should also incorporate the concept of model uncertainty when needed as a default to optimize low dose risk estimation based on major competing models, including linear, threshold, and U-shaped, J-shaped, and bell-shaped models.
To the extent the EPA really was taking studies measuring harm at at exposure level X and assuming 50% of the harm at exposure level X/2, I'm not sure why anyone would disagree with the above. (For all we know, more robust studies might find a greater level of harm at smaller exposures than a linear interpolation would assume.)