My guess would be pretty sure. Because if they did, they'd need to train on it. And with sub-meter satellite imagery, I'm guessing that it would be hard to hide the sort of large-scale artillery practice that would be needed in order for the troops to learn to fire them. If you look at US Army training, it's massive. The supply lines you need for artillery are pretty large, and if you want to practice shooting them, you need a lot of space for that. You can't learn to dial in a gun if your shots are falling into the jungle, and you don't know where. This is what we're talking about. And one gun won't do it - you would want dozens and dozens to hit Seoul. And for those, you need trained crews, and likely several of them so you can rotate them on and off. For cannon crewmen, we require 7 weeks of training, including simulated combat and live fire. If NK is doing that, I think we'd notice. If they're not, then no matter what they're getting or making for weapons, they're not going to be terribly effective.
That said, that's all speculation. I hope we find out the truth after a peace, rather than through a flare-up of the war.
See METK's comment above - Seoul doesn't need to be evacuated. The northern suburbs may need that, but most of the city is safe. NK just doesn't have the range to hit most of Seoul with most of their weapons. And yes, they do have bomb shelters in Seoul. They have always had them.
You seem to have a very isolationist view of the world.
Why does my organization still offer a pension? Because everyone gets in on it, from the secretaries up to the C* positions, and you get out what you put in + matching and interest, with the only variance being when you snuff it. Given the topic of the article here, companies saving because lifespan increases are stalling, that should make pensions even more solvent. If the whole organization can benefit from a pooled investment, why shouldn't they? Why on earth would you rather lone-wolf it and do your own financial planning? It's like self-insuring your house and your car. If you're stupidly rich or love to take life-crushing risks, sure, makes sense. But for everyone else, safety in numbers.
Pensions are a way for a company to show that they are invested in their employees. That they want loyalty to the company, and are willing to pay for it. Not a bad thing, if they're run honestly and well. They're a financial instrument with well understood risks, and those risks can be managed pretty well.
Mine is well distributed between stocks, bonds, and other long-term, stable investment instruments. As employees get older, their share is moved into the more stable instruments. New employees get a larger share of the stocks, with the assumption that they can ride out some ups and downs, and make some real gains before retirement. What this means is that there's no "oh shit we're out of money" for retirees - their money is safely tied away in the bond markets. No, it's not going to grow much, but it doesn't have to. Younger employees get more of the risk, and if you don't make 5 years to get vested, you get your money back. Likely it's going to be a good premium on what you put in, unless you are unlucky and hit a downturn in the market.
Why do you deserve a lifetime of payments that you didn't really earn?
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If I worked just 5 years to get vested, quit, and put no more money in, at 65 I could pull something like $200/month in pension. That's matching plus interest, stock gains, etc. If you work for 30 years and contribute, that's more like $3-5k/month. You get out what you put in. It's not the gravy train for the rest of your life, regardless of what you contributed. What you can withdraw is carefully calculated based on how much you contributed, when you retired, and how long you're expected to live. It works like insurance - insurance rates are set based on how likely it is that you'll need them to pay for something, how much it will cost, and how many people are paying into the insurance pool. Here, we're underwriting loyal employee retirements as thanks for their service, rather than forcing them to take individual risks.
Beef up your skills and resume, then demand that. I did, and it's been amazing. The last few jobs I've laid out that I'm not going to do 60 hrs. I've explained that I do quality over quantity, and if they want assembly line work, I'm not their guy. I'm here to do the stuff that not many people can do. I'm here to fix big problems, design very complicated systems, and document how we can do things more efficiently. I'm doing that from 8:30-4:30 with a short break for lunch. I'm going to come in late some days, and I'm going to blow off work early some days.
What's the catch? I'm working a fair bit below my paygrade. The benefits are awesome, the work is interesting, and I've negotiated a really nice place for myself. I come in refreshed, tackle some real challenges, and then peace out. I have a co-worker who is a 60+ hr per week person. Their work is shit. They recognize it, but that's how they roll. We tend to team up where I take that lump of coal and chip it into a diamond before lunch. It would take me much longer to do it at all, even if I had the knowledge. So we get along great - they recognize that they are the quantity person, and I'm the quality person. The diamond miner and the jeweler. Neither can exist without the other. And I know which one I'd rather be.
I would much prefer to decide how much to invest each year, and how to invest it, myself. Then I only have myself to blame if (when?) something goes wrong.
Because you are privileged to be intelligent, well educated, with adequate resources. If everyone was in that boat, it would be awesome. But not a lot of people are. We don't teach financial literacy in school. People get injured on the job, or get sick or injured without adequate health insurance. Boom, their entire ability to do what you're describing is gone. What then?
Part of the point of social security and disability is to ensure that these people don't end up dying in the street. Don't just skip from one ER to another running up huge costs. It's crazy, but paying for someone to have an apartment tends to cost less than them being homeless. Why? Because our emergency services are really expensive, because they are high-stress, require unique skills, and need to be available 24/7. Stick a homeless person in a house and have a councilor come over at 1pm every day, and they no longer tie up a couple of cops every few days. They don't end up needing an ambulance to come to a sketchy alley with police backup.
I get that social security seems like a really expensive thing, but homeless old people are way, way more expensive to deal with. Maybe you're in favor of just letting them die, but most of us realize that that's not a really good solution for many reasons. If we can't do that, then the next least expensive thing should be done. That's social security. (Well, social security and universal healthcare, but we're not quite there yet.)
As the AC below pointed out, pensions are actually a thing that is not the same as a 401k. It's crazy, but I'm one of the lucky minority who will most likely have a pension. When I retire, I will currently get ~$1500 per month, every month, until I die. If I retire at 55 it will be less, if I retire at 65 it will be the full amount. And if I live t o 105, they're still obligated to that payment. (I won't, because booze and bacon are awesome.) I'm lucky to be vested in one of the top 10 most solvent pension funds in the country, so there's a pretty decent chance that in 20+ years when I hit this point, I'll still get that money. I also can keep paying into it now that I'm vested, even if I'm still not with the organization. That will slowly raise the payout rate, as if I still worked there. They allow this, because they calculate average lifespan, and have a decent idea what their long-term payouts will look like. The more money in that system, the better chance that they are solvent. If I pay more in and die at 55 before claiming any, that helps the pool.
I have a 401k as well, but when I draw that down, it goes down. And when it's gone it's gone. The pension is there until I die, unless it somehow goes insolvent. At the moment, the forecast is 40+ years of solvency. Since I can retire in ballpark 25 years, I should at least pull 15 years of that before I even have to touch my 401k, which will continue to go up in value. Then if Social Security is around, I'll get a pile more money at 70, and at that point I won't need the 401k ever, so it's just play money if Social Security is around, and I have my pension.
Maybe, but I'd find that a little hard to believe. If they move it often, there needs to be a road infrastructure for it, and that really helps narrow down where it might be at any one time. If they don't, they still need to supply the troops manning it. And that means they're making regular deliveries to the same location over years. I can't believe that with the wealth of spy tech we have now that we haven't pinned that down. Did you catch the piece here this week about the spy plane circling Seattle? If they don't have the same tech or better on the NK border, I'd be pretty shocked.
I worked in one tolerable open floor plan, and it worked for a few reasons: It was a small, close-knit team of a dozen, working on one project, with long tables to spread out over instead of cramped desks or cubes, with comfy chairs, and it was a corner room with windows the full length of two walls, with a private bathroom and kitchenette. Compared to where we moved from, that was fantastic. Offices would have been a step up, but compared to the dark dungeon of an open floor plan we came from, that quiet sunny office was amazing.
While I was reading this I was thinking that the dev and testing environments should be hamstrung like a previous generation phone used by a teenager in terms of processing power and hard drive space. It would suck to develop under that, but it would mean that on a next generation phone the app would be small, fast, and responsive.
I'm a little less amazed./. has traditionally had a lot of fairly intelligent people posting here. Unfortunately, it's had a lot of specialists, and in general, smart specialists tend to assume that their expertise in one narrow niche is applicable to others. (Spoiler, it's generally not.) If you've spent any time working with university professors, this becomes abundantly clear.
"I'm really good at X, and I don't understand Y, so Y must be wrong, because I can understand anything, because I'm an expert at X." Add in a small amount of overlap between X and Y, and you've got a nice recipe for rather smart people assuming something they don't understand is wrong. Throw in some political indoctrination, some very good trolls, and possibly some paid shills, and you have a nice recipe for the stupid shit that plagues any post here about climate change. On the flip side there are some really impassioned people with deep knowledge willing to engage and change minds, and that just ramps the shitposting up to 11.
Disney might have the content, but they won't get the user experience right.
How much does a one-day pass to Disney World cost? It's not just the user experience - if it doesn't cost at minimum 2x as much as Netflicks and suck hard, I'll be really surprised. When the only way to watch some of the older Disney movies, Star Wars, and Marvel movies is their platform, they're going to squeeze people soooo hard..... I wouldn't be surprised if the blueray prices got bumped up as well, just to make sure that their streaming service looks a little more enticing.
And now that I think about it, I bet Disney does some exclusive shit to bump interest and get that cash. They already stop producing older movies for years so they can re-release them to a new generation of kids on new media formats - bet they do the same with this as well. So the worst of all worlds - fragment where you can see things, charge a lot for them, and keep an incomplete catalog for no reason save artificial scarcity and marketing gimmicks. I'll put $20 on this bet.
What we need is a national level data feed for this stuff, and a legal mandate for organizations involved to keep it up to date.
What will likely happen is some mapping company decides it's worth paying people to drive around surveying roads all day.
In regards to the second, that already happens regularly. States are required to report roadway conditions to the feds to demonstrate a need for federal funding. They outsource their road surveys to private companies that run automated vehicles down the road, doing 3D Lidar scans, measuring bridge heights, cracks, potholes, guardrail issues, and sign reflectivity. That data is then sent to the feds to get money to fix the issues that are found. It wouldn't be hard to also use this data to identify signs that need to be replaced, although these surveys are generally constrained to major roads and not minor ones.
In regard to the first, I think what's more likely is that the car companies will outsource this to the drivers. Refuse to do self-driving mode until enough people have manually driven the route, so that they have the data to push out to the rest of the fleet. And when things change, if enough oddities arise, again stop the self-driving mode for that stretch until enough data is gathered to get back to an appropriate level of confidence for the route.
I have had people astonished when I just acknowledged I was wrong. So many people are so unwilling to admit that, that there's a culture of accepting people's dodging that admission.
As the old saying goes, I've never learned anything from being right.
Examining what lead you to a wrong conclusion is one of the most powerful tools for self-improvement there is.
And it ignores that a lot of their stockpiles are many decades old. The failure rate on their projectiles of any sort is likely to be very high. Compared to the US which has great expertise in armament design, tests everything regularly, and expends a lot of ammo in the middle east. We're on well-designed, tested, new ammo, and that means we would likely have very low failure rates.
That and the best surveillance that the world has ever seen means that we likely know where all the dangerous things along the border are, and probably have their coordinates already on a list, with people practicing dialing them in on a regular basis.
If the shooting starts, the NK guns are going to go quiet really, really quickly. And once a few strategic stockpiles and bridges are bombed, NK is going to have hundreds of thousands of poorly-equipped, hungry soldiers, with low morale milling around. It's not like NK has good food security in the best of times. Imagine what happens if we actually launch a decent strike against their infrastructure.
Interesting that if you're one of two B&Bs in a town, the supercharger investment might be a business draw, and potentially something you could write off on your taxes. I can see this mentality adding to a rapid increase in deployment once a certain threshold of electric cars are on the road. It might not make sense this year, but within a few years, it might well be another way to entice customers, like free wifi is now.
There is a constitutional right to vote. There is not a constitutional right to an ID. Lots of states are playing shitty games in regards to IDs, and that's where the problem lies. I agree with you here:
I don't think in the modern world there is any reason to not be providing a photo ID for free to every citizen and requiring it be used to vote.
However that's not happening. What's happening is that a 90 year old grandma in my state never needed an ID, then we got a voter ID law. She went to get an ID, and they said that she needed a birth certificate. Which was lost in a fire decades ago, and she was born in a hospital that hasn't existed for half a century. She offered a social security card, but it had her maiden name on it, and since that didn't match the names on the utility bills to prove residence, she was told that she'd need to get an updated social security card with her current name on it. Which required an ID.
Our second bit of bullshit was reducing staffing at DMVs near areas where a lot of poor people might need IDs, right as the law went into effect. So there were long lines there, people giving up because they couldn't take time off work, etc.
If political bullshit didn't make it hard for people to get an ID, I'd be all for it. But when it does, that interferes with a constitutional right. Until that's fixed, I can't be for Voter ID, because there's no indication that in-person fraud is an issue, and it's not worth disenfranchising voters because some asshat wants to play politics. Voter rights trump politician rights. If the politicians want to chase imaginary fraud, they have to do it without disenfranchising legitimate voters. Right now, that's not happening.
I've voted in 3 states, in both tiny towns and moderate sized cities. In all places I needed to give my name and address, and then THEY CROSSED THAT OUT INDICATING I VOTED!!! Should someone have come in and said they were me, when I came in the election clerk would have said, "We already have you marked as voted." That would have gotten escalated up, as clearly something weird was going on. I'd likely have gotten a provisional ballot, and it would have been a big fiasco.
Unless elections work differently outside of the 3 states I've voted in, the only way to do in-person voter fraud is to know the name and address of someone who you know isn't going to vote, and hope that when you go back in to vote again that they don't recognize you. Or know the names and address of multiple people you know aren't voting in several different districts, and drive around to voting location after voting location.
Given the time, energy, and chances for failure doing this, the fact that it doesn't seem to ever happen is a pretty good indication that it's not a problem. When all it takes is one person deciding to vote after all or one clerk going, "Hey, weren't you here before?" to ruin this dastardly plan, one would expect that a few cases would pop up every election across the US. But almost none do.
And how many times could one person pull this off anyway? Three or four votes aren't going to change most elections, even in pretty small towns. (Where the risk of being noticed is higher.) That makes this sort of fraud even less likely, because the risk is so high and the reward so low.
Looking at the proposed solution (voter ID laws) and who is most impacted by them (poor, African-Americans), it's hard not to view this as another attack on that population. And given that it's largely Republican driven, and this population largely votes Democratic, it looks even shadier.
Compare this to the actual voter disenfranchisement we have where certain parts of cities get long voting lines, states pass voter ID laws, oddly administered voter purges happen, convictions lead to loss of voting rights, gerrymandering, and the in-person fraud looks as minimal as it logically should be. When you can run through voter ID laws and knock tens of thousands of opposing votes out, and when you make 10% of the African-Americans in Florida ineligible to vote, worrying that a handful might sneak in a couple of extra votes is laughable.
Lets tackle the things that actually impact elections, rather than going after imaginary things that can't even have a comparable impact even if they are actually happening.
No, that's your problem friend. I was replying to the AC who said, "How can you program a computer to handle an event that was never supposed to happen?" My answer was aligned with yours, understanding that all AI on all planes can be given new knowledge all at once. That, combined with the ability to simulate every possible thing going wrong in all the different combinations, given enough time, means we can give AI vastly more workable knowledge than humans can get.
That's a fine line when you're letting more than 10k people see something. That's more people than lived in the town I grew up in. No, not technically public, but that's not exactly private either. I do agree, however, on the person who set this free on the internet. Someone took this semi-private post and sent it to be widely distributed. I wouldn't be surprised if that person got the axe as well.
The state of society today has me frequently asking how we become so weak minded.
And it's not a one-party thing either! I'm as appalled at the lack of big-boy-pants on the left as I am with the effectiveness of fear-mongering on the right. Micro-aggressions to the left, murdering Muslims to the right, stuck in the middle with you.
I'm not sure that those are evidence that we're there yet. How many failures were there before we got to those videos? How many failures per thousand flight hours as compared to humans? Maybe we are, but I think we need some hard numbers. What you've got is evidence that it's possible and that we're well on our way. I'm not sure that it means that we're there yet.
Yelling incorrect things doesn't make them correct. You know that, right?
You're only examining one side of the equation, and that means you're missing half your data. You need to consider both how many crashes pilots cause, as well as how many they prevent. Which one of those is larger determines whether or not you want them in the cockpit. Right now, my guess is that they probably prevent more than they cause, if only because of how rare plane crashes are. However, once they are causing more than the computer would, having them in the cockpit is simply more dangerous.
You seriously can't imagine this? Lack of creativity on your part, I guess. You have a realistic physics simulator, and you simulate parts failing. All of the parts. Combinations of parts. Start with the most common ones, and move to the more uncommon ones. And when something like the above happens, you add that to the simulator specifically, because it's known to be possible.
And then you have your machine learning fly all of the billion simulations and learn how to handle them. Unlike a pilot, the machine won't get tired, can work 24 hours per day, and can be spun up in hundreds or thousands of instances to learn, and have that experience combined.
This is why there's so much concern about AI. If it can glean decades of experience over a couple of weeks, and it can incorporate all the knowledge from thousands of other systems in operational use, AI will quickly understand things that humans never have, to a precision that humans can't match. Imagine if the 5th plane to land in an hour knew the distribution of successful landing speeds and flap positions of the previous 4, all attempting to land with a crosswind. Suddenly you've got a plane landing pre-configured to deal with ground conditions and an understanding of how much it might need to adjust once it is able to take its own data into account. That's crazy. And that's the sort of thing that will likely prevent a lot of accidents in a lot of industries.
Slashdot Mirror
My guess would be pretty sure. Because if they did, they'd need to train on it. And with sub-meter satellite imagery, I'm guessing that it would be hard to hide the sort of large-scale artillery practice that would be needed in order for the troops to learn to fire them. If you look at US Army training, it's massive. The supply lines you need for artillery are pretty large, and if you want to practice shooting them, you need a lot of space for that. You can't learn to dial in a gun if your shots are falling into the jungle, and you don't know where. This is what we're talking about. And one gun won't do it - you would want dozens and dozens to hit Seoul. And for those, you need trained crews, and likely several of them so you can rotate them on and off. For cannon crewmen, we require 7 weeks of training, including simulated combat and live fire. If NK is doing that, I think we'd notice. If they're not, then no matter what they're getting or making for weapons, they're not going to be terribly effective.
That said, that's all speculation. I hope we find out the truth after a peace, rather than through a flare-up of the war.
See METK's comment above - Seoul doesn't need to be evacuated. The northern suburbs may need that, but most of the city is safe. NK just doesn't have the range to hit most of Seoul with most of their weapons. And yes, they do have bomb shelters in Seoul. They have always had them.
You seem to have a very isolationist view of the world.
Why does my organization still offer a pension? Because everyone gets in on it, from the secretaries up to the C* positions, and you get out what you put in + matching and interest, with the only variance being when you snuff it. Given the topic of the article here, companies saving because lifespan increases are stalling, that should make pensions even more solvent. If the whole organization can benefit from a pooled investment, why shouldn't they? Why on earth would you rather lone-wolf it and do your own financial planning? It's like self-insuring your house and your car. If you're stupidly rich or love to take life-crushing risks, sure, makes sense. But for everyone else, safety in numbers.
Pensions are a way for a company to show that they are invested in their employees. That they want loyalty to the company, and are willing to pay for it. Not a bad thing, if they're run honestly and well. They're a financial instrument with well understood risks, and those risks can be managed pretty well.
Mine is well distributed between stocks, bonds, and other long-term, stable investment instruments. As employees get older, their share is moved into the more stable instruments. New employees get a larger share of the stocks, with the assumption that they can ride out some ups and downs, and make some real gains before retirement. What this means is that there's no "oh shit we're out of money" for retirees - their money is safely tied away in the bond markets. No, it's not going to grow much, but it doesn't have to. Younger employees get more of the risk, and if you don't make 5 years to get vested, you get your money back. Likely it's going to be a good premium on what you put in, unless you are unlucky and hit a downturn in the market.
Why do you deserve a lifetime of payments that you didn't really earn?
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If I worked just 5 years to get vested, quit, and put no more money in, at 65 I could pull something like $200/month in pension. That's matching plus interest, stock gains, etc. If you work for 30 years and contribute, that's more like $3-5k/month. You get out what you put in. It's not the gravy train for the rest of your life, regardless of what you contributed. What you can withdraw is carefully calculated based on how much you contributed, when you retired, and how long you're expected to live. It works like insurance - insurance rates are set based on how likely it is that you'll need them to pay for something, how much it will cost, and how many people are paying into the insurance pool. Here, we're underwriting loyal employee retirements as thanks for their service, rather than forcing them to take individual risks.
You could even get two lines for twice the price.
Sure, but if you bought one at twice the normal price, could you get one for free? Because free is where the deals are.
Beef up your skills and resume, then demand that. I did, and it's been amazing. The last few jobs I've laid out that I'm not going to do 60 hrs. I've explained that I do quality over quantity, and if they want assembly line work, I'm not their guy. I'm here to do the stuff that not many people can do. I'm here to fix big problems, design very complicated systems, and document how we can do things more efficiently. I'm doing that from 8:30-4:30 with a short break for lunch. I'm going to come in late some days, and I'm going to blow off work early some days.
What's the catch? I'm working a fair bit below my paygrade. The benefits are awesome, the work is interesting, and I've negotiated a really nice place for myself. I come in refreshed, tackle some real challenges, and then peace out. I have a co-worker who is a 60+ hr per week person. Their work is shit. They recognize it, but that's how they roll. We tend to team up where I take that lump of coal and chip it into a diamond before lunch. It would take me much longer to do it at all, even if I had the knowledge. So we get along great - they recognize that they are the quantity person, and I'm the quality person. The diamond miner and the jeweler. Neither can exist without the other. And I know which one I'd rather be.
I would much prefer to decide how much to invest each year, and how to invest it, myself. Then I only have myself to blame if (when?) something goes wrong.
Because you are privileged to be intelligent, well educated, with adequate resources. If everyone was in that boat, it would be awesome. But not a lot of people are. We don't teach financial literacy in school. People get injured on the job, or get sick or injured without adequate health insurance. Boom, their entire ability to do what you're describing is gone. What then?
Part of the point of social security and disability is to ensure that these people don't end up dying in the street. Don't just skip from one ER to another running up huge costs. It's crazy, but paying for someone to have an apartment tends to cost less than them being homeless. Why? Because our emergency services are really expensive, because they are high-stress, require unique skills, and need to be available 24/7. Stick a homeless person in a house and have a councilor come over at 1pm every day, and they no longer tie up a couple of cops every few days. They don't end up needing an ambulance to come to a sketchy alley with police backup.
I get that social security seems like a really expensive thing, but homeless old people are way, way more expensive to deal with. Maybe you're in favor of just letting them die, but most of us realize that that's not a really good solution for many reasons. If we can't do that, then the next least expensive thing should be done. That's social security. (Well, social security and universal healthcare, but we're not quite there yet.)
As the AC below pointed out, pensions are actually a thing that is not the same as a 401k. It's crazy, but I'm one of the lucky minority who will most likely have a pension. When I retire, I will currently get ~$1500 per month, every month, until I die. If I retire at 55 it will be less, if I retire at 65 it will be the full amount. And if I live t o 105, they're still obligated to that payment. (I won't, because booze and bacon are awesome.) I'm lucky to be vested in one of the top 10 most solvent pension funds in the country, so there's a pretty decent chance that in 20+ years when I hit this point, I'll still get that money. I also can keep paying into it now that I'm vested, even if I'm still not with the organization. That will slowly raise the payout rate, as if I still worked there. They allow this, because they calculate average lifespan, and have a decent idea what their long-term payouts will look like. The more money in that system, the better chance that they are solvent. If I pay more in and die at 55 before claiming any, that helps the pool.
I have a 401k as well, but when I draw that down, it goes down. And when it's gone it's gone. The pension is there until I die, unless it somehow goes insolvent. At the moment, the forecast is 40+ years of solvency. Since I can retire in ballpark 25 years, I should at least pull 15 years of that before I even have to touch my 401k, which will continue to go up in value. Then if Social Security is around, I'll get a pile more money at 70, and at that point I won't need the 401k ever, so it's just play money if Social Security is around, and I have my pension.
Maybe, but I'd find that a little hard to believe. If they move it often, there needs to be a road infrastructure for it, and that really helps narrow down where it might be at any one time. If they don't, they still need to supply the troops manning it. And that means they're making regular deliveries to the same location over years. I can't believe that with the wealth of spy tech we have now that we haven't pinned that down. Did you catch the piece here this week about the spy plane circling Seattle? If they don't have the same tech or better on the NK border, I'd be pretty shocked.
I worked in one tolerable open floor plan, and it worked for a few reasons: It was a small, close-knit team of a dozen, working on one project, with long tables to spread out over instead of cramped desks or cubes, with comfy chairs, and it was a corner room with windows the full length of two walls, with a private bathroom and kitchenette. Compared to where we moved from, that was fantastic. Offices would have been a step up, but compared to the dark dungeon of an open floor plan we came from, that quiet sunny office was amazing.
While I was reading this I was thinking that the dev and testing environments should be hamstrung like a previous generation phone used by a teenager in terms of processing power and hard drive space. It would suck to develop under that, but it would mean that on a next generation phone the app would be small, fast, and responsive.
I'm a little less amazed. /. has traditionally had a lot of fairly intelligent people posting here. Unfortunately, it's had a lot of specialists, and in general, smart specialists tend to assume that their expertise in one narrow niche is applicable to others. (Spoiler, it's generally not.) If you've spent any time working with university professors, this becomes abundantly clear.
"I'm really good at X, and I don't understand Y, so Y must be wrong, because I can understand anything, because I'm an expert at X." Add in a small amount of overlap between X and Y, and you've got a nice recipe for rather smart people assuming something they don't understand is wrong. Throw in some political indoctrination, some very good trolls, and possibly some paid shills, and you have a nice recipe for the stupid shit that plagues any post here about climate change. On the flip side there are some really impassioned people with deep knowledge willing to engage and change minds, and that just ramps the shitposting up to 11.
Disney might have the content, but they won't get the user experience right.
How much does a one-day pass to Disney World cost? It's not just the user experience - if it doesn't cost at minimum 2x as much as Netflicks and suck hard, I'll be really surprised. When the only way to watch some of the older Disney movies, Star Wars, and Marvel movies is their platform, they're going to squeeze people soooo hard..... I wouldn't be surprised if the blueray prices got bumped up as well, just to make sure that their streaming service looks a little more enticing.
And now that I think about it, I bet Disney does some exclusive shit to bump interest and get that cash. They already stop producing older movies for years so they can re-release them to a new generation of kids on new media formats - bet they do the same with this as well. So the worst of all worlds - fragment where you can see things, charge a lot for them, and keep an incomplete catalog for no reason save artificial scarcity and marketing gimmicks. I'll put $20 on this bet.
What we need is a national level data feed for this stuff, and a legal mandate for organizations involved to keep it up to date.
What will likely happen is some mapping company decides it's worth paying people to drive around surveying roads all day.
In regards to the second, that already happens regularly. States are required to report roadway conditions to the feds to demonstrate a need for federal funding. They outsource their road surveys to private companies that run automated vehicles down the road, doing 3D Lidar scans, measuring bridge heights, cracks, potholes, guardrail issues, and sign reflectivity. That data is then sent to the feds to get money to fix the issues that are found. It wouldn't be hard to also use this data to identify signs that need to be replaced, although these surveys are generally constrained to major roads and not minor ones.
In regard to the first, I think what's more likely is that the car companies will outsource this to the drivers. Refuse to do self-driving mode until enough people have manually driven the route, so that they have the data to push out to the rest of the fleet. And when things change, if enough oddities arise, again stop the self-driving mode for that stretch until enough data is gathered to get back to an appropriate level of confidence for the route.
The problem is that when they update the guidance, people like you don't go look at it and continue to scream about the old guidance.
I have had people astonished when I just acknowledged I was wrong. So many people are so unwilling to admit that, that there's a culture of accepting people's dodging that admission.
As the old saying goes, I've never learned anything from being right.
Examining what lead you to a wrong conclusion is one of the most powerful tools for self-improvement there is.
And it ignores that a lot of their stockpiles are many decades old. The failure rate on their projectiles of any sort is likely to be very high. Compared to the US which has great expertise in armament design, tests everything regularly, and expends a lot of ammo in the middle east. We're on well-designed, tested, new ammo, and that means we would likely have very low failure rates.
That and the best surveillance that the world has ever seen means that we likely know where all the dangerous things along the border are, and probably have their coordinates already on a list, with people practicing dialing them in on a regular basis.
If the shooting starts, the NK guns are going to go quiet really, really quickly. And once a few strategic stockpiles and bridges are bombed, NK is going to have hundreds of thousands of poorly-equipped, hungry soldiers, with low morale milling around. It's not like NK has good food security in the best of times. Imagine what happens if we actually launch a decent strike against their infrastructure.
This is something I never considered. Thanks!
Interesting that if you're one of two B&Bs in a town, the supercharger investment might be a business draw, and potentially something you could write off on your taxes. I can see this mentality adding to a rapid increase in deployment once a certain threshold of electric cars are on the road. It might not make sense this year, but within a few years, it might well be another way to entice customers, like free wifi is now.
There is a constitutional right to vote. There is not a constitutional right to an ID. Lots of states are playing shitty games in regards to IDs, and that's where the problem lies. I agree with you here:
I don't think in the modern world there is any reason to not be providing a photo ID for free to every citizen and requiring it be used to vote.
However that's not happening. What's happening is that a 90 year old grandma in my state never needed an ID, then we got a voter ID law. She went to get an ID, and they said that she needed a birth certificate. Which was lost in a fire decades ago, and she was born in a hospital that hasn't existed for half a century. She offered a social security card, but it had her maiden name on it, and since that didn't match the names on the utility bills to prove residence, she was told that she'd need to get an updated social security card with her current name on it. Which required an ID.
Our second bit of bullshit was reducing staffing at DMVs near areas where a lot of poor people might need IDs, right as the law went into effect. So there were long lines there, people giving up because they couldn't take time off work, etc.
If political bullshit didn't make it hard for people to get an ID, I'd be all for it. But when it does, that interferes with a constitutional right. Until that's fixed, I can't be for Voter ID, because there's no indication that in-person fraud is an issue, and it's not worth disenfranchising voters because some asshat wants to play politics. Voter rights trump politician rights. If the politicians want to chase imaginary fraud, they have to do it without disenfranchising legitimate voters. Right now, that's not happening.
What? Have you never voted?
I've voted in 3 states, in both tiny towns and moderate sized cities. In all places I needed to give my name and address, and then THEY CROSSED THAT OUT INDICATING I VOTED!!! Should someone have come in and said they were me, when I came in the election clerk would have said, "We already have you marked as voted." That would have gotten escalated up, as clearly something weird was going on. I'd likely have gotten a provisional ballot, and it would have been a big fiasco.
Unless elections work differently outside of the 3 states I've voted in, the only way to do in-person voter fraud is to know the name and address of someone who you know isn't going to vote, and hope that when you go back in to vote again that they don't recognize you. Or know the names and address of multiple people you know aren't voting in several different districts, and drive around to voting location after voting location.
Given the time, energy, and chances for failure doing this, the fact that it doesn't seem to ever happen is a pretty good indication that it's not a problem. When all it takes is one person deciding to vote after all or one clerk going, "Hey, weren't you here before?" to ruin this dastardly plan, one would expect that a few cases would pop up every election across the US. But almost none do.
And how many times could one person pull this off anyway? Three or four votes aren't going to change most elections, even in pretty small towns. (Where the risk of being noticed is higher.) That makes this sort of fraud even less likely, because the risk is so high and the reward so low.
Looking at the proposed solution (voter ID laws) and who is most impacted by them (poor, African-Americans), it's hard not to view this as another attack on that population. And given that it's largely Republican driven, and this population largely votes Democratic, it looks even shadier.
Compare this to the actual voter disenfranchisement we have where certain parts of cities get long voting lines, states pass voter ID laws, oddly administered voter purges happen, convictions lead to loss of voting rights, gerrymandering, and the in-person fraud looks as minimal as it logically should be. When you can run through voter ID laws and knock tens of thousands of opposing votes out, and when you make 10% of the African-Americans in Florida ineligible to vote, worrying that a handful might sneak in a couple of extra votes is laughable.
Lets tackle the things that actually impact elections, rather than going after imaginary things that can't even have a comparable impact even if they are actually happening.
Or lack of reading in your part.
No, that's your problem friend. I was replying to the AC who said, "How can you program a computer to handle an event that was never supposed to happen?" My answer was aligned with yours, understanding that all AI on all planes can be given new knowledge all at once. That, combined with the ability to simulate every possible thing going wrong in all the different combinations, given enough time, means we can give AI vastly more workable knowledge than humans can get.
That's a fine line when you're letting more than 10k people see something. That's more people than lived in the town I grew up in. No, not technically public, but that's not exactly private either. I do agree, however, on the person who set this free on the internet. Someone took this semi-private post and sent it to be widely distributed. I wouldn't be surprised if that person got the axe as well.
The state of society today has me frequently asking how we become so weak minded.
And it's not a one-party thing either! I'm as appalled at the lack of big-boy-pants on the left as I am with the effectiveness of fear-mongering on the right. Micro-aggressions to the left, murdering Muslims to the right, stuck in the middle with you.
I'm not sure that those are evidence that we're there yet. How many failures were there before we got to those videos? How many failures per thousand flight hours as compared to humans? Maybe we are, but I think we need some hard numbers. What you've got is evidence that it's possible and that we're well on our way. I'm not sure that it means that we're there yet.
Yelling incorrect things doesn't make them correct. You know that, right?
You're only examining one side of the equation, and that means you're missing half your data. You need to consider both how many crashes pilots cause, as well as how many they prevent. Which one of those is larger determines whether or not you want them in the cockpit. Right now, my guess is that they probably prevent more than they cause, if only because of how rare plane crashes are. However, once they are causing more than the computer would, having them in the cockpit is simply more dangerous.
You seriously can't imagine this? Lack of creativity on your part, I guess. You have a realistic physics simulator, and you simulate parts failing. All of the parts. Combinations of parts. Start with the most common ones, and move to the more uncommon ones. And when something like the above happens, you add that to the simulator specifically, because it's known to be possible.
And then you have your machine learning fly all of the billion simulations and learn how to handle them. Unlike a pilot, the machine won't get tired, can work 24 hours per day, and can be spun up in hundreds or thousands of instances to learn, and have that experience combined.
This is why there's so much concern about AI. If it can glean decades of experience over a couple of weeks, and it can incorporate all the knowledge from thousands of other systems in operational use, AI will quickly understand things that humans never have, to a precision that humans can't match. Imagine if the 5th plane to land in an hour knew the distribution of successful landing speeds and flap positions of the previous 4, all attempting to land with a crosswind. Suddenly you've got a plane landing pre-configured to deal with ground conditions and an understanding of how much it might need to adjust once it is able to take its own data into account. That's crazy. And that's the sort of thing that will likely prevent a lot of accidents in a lot of industries.