The 40% reduction is of all Teslas that have Autopilot enabled. Right from the first day. And it covers all miles, whether autopilot was enabled or not. (Several of the safety features of autopilot are always on.)
So to answer your question, change of driver behaviour having heard of autopilot crashes could not possibly have affected the statistic, no.
If you were buying a Tesla you'd be so excited about the AutoPilot, you'd find out all about it before you got delivery.
Heck you'd have to read or be taught at least something about it, because you wouldn't know how to activate it otherwise. There isn't a button marked autopilot.
There is some mild rebuking if you don't hold the steering wheel.
If you don't hold the steering wheel then after a time between 1 and 5 minutes (depending on situation) you get an audible and visual warning. Ignore the warning for 15 seconds and you get a "strike". 3 strikes within an hour and you're out: you won't be able to use autopilot until your next journey.
They are exceptions with some of the negatives of exceptions removed. 1) They don't leak. 2) They are never "unhandled". This is because the implementation is different from C style exceptions.
But in terms of what the feature is, they are exceptions. You would never put "doesn't have exceptions" in a cons column of a pros/cons list.
Chris Lattner creates compilers and languages. So that's doubtless what he'll do at Tesla. Tesla has an NVidea board that is built for running neural networks, and does massive amounts of processing with Intel CPUs ARM cores and GPUs. Seems to me there's ample room for a language and compilers to deal with that, over and above whatever NVidia supply. A language for dealling with multiprocessing, neural networks and for creating AI rules. That sort of thing.
I didn't suggest you put it out on multiple platforms. I suggested you port it to Windows, just Windows, since you claimed it wouldn't be difficult.
Now you're saying it is so difficult only a company could do it. Make your mind up.
As to doing it on your own, if it's too much work for your, get help. GitHub is there for you to both host the code and run the development as a team effort.
Fair enough, but those arguments were considered at the time and the balanced choice was made to remove.
Sure, I'd love to have the ? : operator.
Swift does have the conditional operator. Some people make the mistake of trying it and concluding it doesn't work. But they've neglected to seprate the ? from the condition with a space, and thus made the compiler think they were trying to unwrap an optional.
It also has the ?? : nil coalesing operator. Again spaces are required.
It's beginning to look to me like Functional Reactive Programming (FRP) is the next big change in the way software is created. And whilst Swift doesn't support that natively, there are a couple of libraries that do support it in as Swifty a way as possible: RxSwift and ReactiveCocoa.
I can't say any more than that, as I'm early on in learning about this topic.
Programming becomes a pleasure again, once you get past the past the hurdle of learning Swifts new features and differences.
I'll give you 3.
Swift makes header files unnecessary. Aren't you sick of maintaining both a.h and a.m file for every class?
Swift makes handling of nulls explicit. In Obj-C any pointer could be nil, and mostly it's not clear if that is actually a meaningful thing, or whether you need to check for nil "Just in case". Swift's optionals mean you always define whether a "pointer" can be nil. And so when you come to use a value, you know whether you should be checking for nil or not.
object.method() calls are far easier to read when chained than [object method]. The Obj-C variety had one advantage that it required methods with multiple parameters to be named. And that was better than the anonymous parameters of most other languages back in the day. But Swift as a syntax that encourages named parameters without mandating them. Which is the best of both worlds.
If only we had some other communication medium than social media to communicate such genuine items of news. You could call it "The News" or you could print it on paper and call it a "Newspaper".
You can select the following distance between 1-7 by twisting the cruise control lever. It's a time based system, so it will lengthen as speeds increase.
Real people mostly don't yet know that autonomous driving is available yet. And when they do hear of it they go into Luddite mode and assume that it can't possibly be safe. When the sytems are more widely available, and people are more comfortable with the concept, for sure most of them will want it! Most people hate their daily commute.
Slashdot Mirror
The 40% reduction is of all Teslas that have Autopilot enabled. Right from the first day. And it covers all miles, whether autopilot was enabled or not. (Several of the safety features of autopilot are always on.)
So to answer your question, change of driver behaviour having heard of autopilot crashes could not possibly have affected the statistic, no.
If you were buying a Tesla you'd be so excited about the AutoPilot, you'd find out all about it before you got delivery.
Heck you'd have to read or be taught at least something about it, because you wouldn't know how to activate it otherwise. There isn't a button marked autopilot.
There is some mild rebuking if you don't hold the steering wheel.
If you don't hold the steering wheel then after a time between 1 and 5 minutes (depending on situation) you get an audible and visual warning. Ignore the warning for 15 seconds and you get a "strike". 3 strikes within an hour and you're out: you won't be able to use autopilot until your next journey.
They are exceptions with some of the negatives of exceptions removed.
1) They don't leak.
2) They are never "unhandled".
This is because the implementation is different from C style exceptions.
But in terms of what the feature is, they are exceptions. You would never put "doesn't have exceptions" in a cons column of a pros/cons list.
Chris Lattner creates compilers and languages. So that's doubtless what he'll do at Tesla. Tesla has an NVidea board that is built for running neural networks, and does massive amounts of processing with Intel CPUs ARM cores and GPUs. Seems to me there's ample room for a language and compilers to deal with that, over and above whatever NVidia supply. A language for dealling with multiprocessing, neural networks and for creating AI rules. That sort of thing.
It's inference. If the compiler can't infer then you're going to have to specify it. It's a convenience, and makes for sparser, easier to read code.
If you don't like it, then simply always put your types in.
Because the :Int is not required because of type inference. So without let, you don't know if:
someThing = 4
is a constant declaration or a variable assignment.
Swift has supported exceptions since Swift 2
Windows is completely irrelevant to the success of Swift.
It's not Apple's job to do a Window's port.
Open source only means that the souce is open, and available for who ever wants to take on the task.
Clearly you are not up to it. Therefore you'll have to do without.
I didn't suggest you put it out on multiple platforms. I suggested you port it to Windows, just Windows, since you claimed it wouldn't be difficult.
Now you're saying it is so difficult only a company could do it. Make your mind up.
As to doing it on your own, if it's too much work for your, get help. GitHub is there for you to both host the code and run the development as a team effort.
Fair enough, but those arguments were considered at the time and the balanced choice was made to remove.
Sure, I'd love to have the ? : operator.
Swift does have the conditional operator. Some people make the mistake of trying it and concluding it doesn't work. But they've neglected to seprate the ? from the condition with a space, and thus made the compiler think they were trying to unwrap an optional.
It also has the ?? : nil coalesing operator. Again spaces are required.
It's beginning to look to me like Functional Reactive Programming (FRP) is the next big change in the way software is created. And whilst Swift doesn't support that natively, there are a couple of libraries that do support it in as Swifty a way as possible: RxSwift and ReactiveCocoa.
I can't say any more than that, as I'm early on in learning about this topic.
Programming becomes a pleasure again, once you get past the past the hurdle of learning Swifts new features and differences.
I'll give you 3.
Swift makes header files unnecessary. Aren't you sick of maintaining both a .h and a .m file for every class?
Swift makes handling of nulls explicit. In Obj-C any pointer could be nil, and mostly it's not clear if that is actually a meaningful thing, or whether you need to check for nil "Just in case". Swift's optionals mean you always define whether a "pointer" can be nil. And so when you come to use a value, you know whether you should be checking for nil or not.
object.method() calls are far easier to read when chained than [object method]. The Obj-C variety had one advantage that it required methods with multiple parameters to be named. And that was better than the anonymous parameters of most other languages back in the day. But Swift as a syntax that encourages named parameters without mandating them. Which is the best of both worlds.
He already gave a full list of reasons why at the time the change was proposed.
https://github.com/apple/swift...
He's gone to Tesla, where he's going to be in charge of AutoPilot development.
If a Windows version shouldn't be that difficult, YOU do it. That's the point of open source.
If only we had some other communication medium than social media to communicate such genuine items of news. You could call it "The News" or you could print it on paper and call it a "Newspaper".
You can select the following distance between 1-7 by twisting the cruise control lever. It's a time based system, so it will lengthen as speeds increase.
Real people mostly don't yet know that autonomous driving is available yet. And when they do hear of it they go into Luddite mode and assume that it can't possibly be safe. When the sytems are more widely available, and people are more comfortable with the concept, for sure most of them will want it! Most people hate their daily commute.
You mean like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
But of course Uber cannot be trusted to be telling the truth about anything.
You're simply not an early adopter. But you'll be getting an electric vehicle at some point or other.
Snopes is biased to the truth. Dunno about Politifact.
That's the difference between Apple and Google. Apple respect users privacy.