I'm not sure that's the best strategy. Consider traveling on a highway at 65 mph. The (human driven) car ahead swerves aside to reveal a nearly stationary vehicle or other large object. Both lanes to the sides are occupied. Is it better to hit the vehicle ahead at whatever speed you'll be traveling after max braking, or gently sideswipe one of the cars to the side? Maybe the car to the side can get over into an empty lane or shoulder and it will be a very mild accident.
According to some research, automated cars crash less than human drivers. 1.6 compared to 2.5 crashes per million miles for the most severe category of accidents, and 5.6 compared to 14.4 for the least. The problem is those miles are not really comparable to the entire set of miles driven by humans. I would say the answer is nobody really knows how safe they are compared to people.
Perhaps this could lead to a proof for the somewhat similar four color theorem?
No need.
"The four color theorem was proved in 1976 by Kenneth Appel and Wolfgang Haken... To dispel remaining doubt about the Appel–Haken proof, a simpler proof using the same ideas and still relying on computers was published in 1997 by Robertson, Sanders, Seymour, and Thomas. Additionally, in 2005, the theorem was proved by Georges Gonthier with general-purpose theorem-proving software."
the vast majority of people are not worth a trip to Starbucks
Propose a meetup somewhere you might want to go anyway. From what I hear most people go to coffee shops a lot (I'm not most people) so you're not even spending much extra time.
Of course the $1000 flagships are not the entire market. It's not clear what percentage of people are only willing to buy a phone if it's top of the line, but aren't willing to spend $1000. For everyone else there are still phones to buy.
It only happens when there is competition, and in order for there to be competition there needs to be at least 6 arms-lengh-unrelated choices. In any competative market where the choices have been reduced below six, prices go up, substantially.
We need to be ready for it, but that doesn't mean we need to develop it too. If a terrorist organization obtains killbots, having our own better killbots first won't help with that. We need anti-killbot technology. Maybe that's killbots too, but maybe it's not.
It's a very common error. One of those things that indicates the writer may not be actually thinking very much about what they're writing. If you give it some thought, you will either not understand the phrase at all (in which case you shouldn't be using it) or see that it's backwards.
There was a woman who had her child taken away by CPS for leaving her at a public park to play while she was at work. I think she got her back, but still.
Library & movie theater: 1.5 mile. God, I hated this trip.
At 10 miles per hour (a moderate to slow pace on a bike) that would be a 9 minute bike ride. Did you have a crappy bike, or was it a crappy road, or what?
How does it work in a parliamentary system? The prime minister can't hire and fire as he pleases? On a side note, there is exactly one person in the executive branch who the president cannot fire, and that is the vice president.
Slashdot Mirror
attempting to slow down as much as you can might still be the best strategy even in this scenario.
It certainly might, and clearly often will be. But it won't always be the best strategy, which is what it sounded like you were saying.
I'm not sure that's the best strategy. Consider traveling on a highway at 65 mph. The (human driven) car ahead swerves aside to reveal a nearly stationary vehicle or other large object. Both lanes to the sides are occupied. Is it better to hit the vehicle ahead at whatever speed you'll be traveling after max braking, or gently sideswipe one of the cars to the side? Maybe the car to the side can get over into an empty lane or shoulder and it will be a very mild accident.
According to some research, automated cars crash less than human drivers. 1.6 compared to 2.5 crashes per million miles for the most severe category of accidents, and 5.6 compared to 14.4 for the least. The problem is those miles are not really comparable to the entire set of miles driven by humans. I would say the answer is nobody really knows how safe they are compared to people.
https://www.vtti.vt.edu/featur...
Perhaps this could lead to a proof for the somewhat similar four color theorem?
No need.
"The four color theorem was proved in 1976 by Kenneth Appel and Wolfgang Haken... To dispel remaining doubt about the Appel–Haken proof, a simpler proof using the same ideas and still relying on computers was published in 1997 by Robertson, Sanders, Seymour, and Thomas. Additionally, in 2005, the theorem was proved by Georges Gonthier with general-purpose theorem-proving software."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
the vast majority of people are not worth a trip to Starbucks
Propose a meetup somewhere you might want to go anyway. From what I hear most people go to coffee shops a lot (I'm not most people) so you're not even spending much extra time.
Good points, but between Assad and ISIS, there would have been a refugee crisis without our help.
Of course the $1000 flagships are not the entire market. It's not clear what percentage of people are only willing to buy a phone if it's top of the line, but aren't willing to spend $1000. For everyone else there are still phones to buy.
Well it's good you're not investing, because thinking you know the sure thing about a stock's future is a great way to lose a bunch of money.
Of course 100% reliability will not be the standard, because that's never acheivable.
It only happens when there is competition, and in order for there to be competition there needs to be at least 6 arms-lengh-unrelated choices. In any competative market where the choices have been reduced below six, prices go up, substantially.
I'm curious - where did you find that number?
No, I had it easy getting to elementary and junior high schools.
We need to be ready for it, but that doesn't mean we need to develop it too. If a terrorist organization obtains killbots, having our own better killbots first won't help with that. We need anti-killbot technology. Maybe that's killbots too, but maybe it's not.
My 17 year old has been programming for years, so I don't agree that young minds can't solve complex problems.
I have an almost ten year old grandson who loves robotics (and electronics)
Look into FIRST LEGO League for him if you haven't already.
Pshhh, Stack Overflow is so 2014. There's Discord for that now.
It's a very common error. One of those things that indicates the writer may not be actually thinking very much about what they're writing. If you give it some thought, you will either not understand the phrase at all (in which case you shouldn't be using it) or see that it's backwards.
There was a woman who had her child taken away by CPS for leaving her at a public park to play while she was at work. I think she got her back, but still.
Library & movie theater: 1.5 mile. God, I hated this trip.
At 10 miles per hour (a moderate to slow pace on a bike) that would be a 9 minute bike ride. Did you have a crappy bike, or was it a crappy road, or what?
Why do you assume others' experiences of adolescence are like yours? That doesn't sound anything like my teenage years.
Did you try the alternate 1.0.0.1?
How does it work in a parliamentary system? The prime minister can't hire and fire as he pleases? On a side note, there is exactly one person in the executive branch who the president cannot fire, and that is the vice president.
Five stars, would mod funny
It makes people feel superior to crap on the achievements of others.
Unless there are cameras smaller than a grain of salt too, I'm not worried about that yet.
Did you read the paper, or are you just going off the /. summary?