I really get tired of this argument. Do you even know where the term Autopilot comes from or what it means?
From Wikipedia emphasis mine:
An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of an aircraft without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required. Autopilots do not replace human operators, but instead they assist them in controlling the aircraft. This allows them to focus on broader aspects of operations such as monitoring the trajectory, weather and systems.
The autopilot in every fucking definition of the word, is an assist device for the pilot, not a replacement. It handles speed, heading, and in some cases altitude. It doesn't monitor other aircraft, it doesn't avoid collisions, it doesn't (endless list of pilot tasks).
It really, really, really doesn't matter what the technical description of "autopilot" is. In common usage, people think that it means a computer flies the plane, and Tesla deliberately use this ambiguity between literal truth and public perception for cynical marketing reasons.
I know people with auto pilots on boats and when engaged, they'll go downstairs and only pop their heads out of the cabin ever ten minutes or so. But otherwise they're watching movies or cooking or eating or using the toilet. Sometimes they'll even go to sleep if they're alone.
That's probably ok if you're in the middle of the ocean, but you wouldn't do it in a crowded harbour.
Comparing it to cruise control is stupid. Cruise control maintains your speed extremely well and doesn't ever fail catastrophically.
Tell you what. You get on the highway and put on a non-adaptive cruise control like the one in my car and let it maintain your speed while traffic slows in front of you. Let me know how that didn't "fail catastrophically" when you are done rear ending the car in front of you.
Every accident with the Tesla autopilot I've seen has been idiots relying too heavily on the system thinking it replaces the driver instead of assisting the driver. While it's a capable system, the person behind the wheel still has to use their brain and pay attention and take control of the car.
The point is that you are not lied to and told that your non-adaptive cruise control will magically slow you down if something gets in the way, so you keep watching the fucking road.
It is a fundamental flaw to have a system where you can sort of half watch the road most of the time and probably not have much of an accident unless you're unlucky.
With normal driving, you basically have to concentrate 100% of the time. A self driving car would mean you had to concentrate 0% of the time. It is absurd to have something in between.
If free market principles are to take their natural course then all this crap going on with Youtube should be a temporary disruption.
YouTube are perfectly following market principles. They have reacted to their advertisers not wanting to be associated with particular topics. It's a financial decision, not a moral one.
You appear to be falling for the right wing fallacy that free market=free speech.
Then they are neglecting their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders.
Nonsense. YouTube or any other business are perfectly entitled to reject money from, and not do business with people promoting Nazism or Paedophilia (or whatever unequivocably bad thing you choose). There is no moral or legal obligation for businesses to take every possible money-making opportunity.
But, if you are a true believer in democracy . . . it should be right of UK voters to decide to kick out foreigners . . . correct . . . ?
The UK is a parliamentary democracy. If the UK population voted for an absolutely racist/xenophobic government at a General Election, that would be completely different from a marginal majority in a stupid fucking Referendum that no one took seriously until it was too late.
Voting in such a government would probably start an actual Civil War, but that is another issue.
I look at it as writing. Almost everyone learns to write, almost none of them will ever write for a living though. Writing at a basic level isn't too hard, writing a novel is quite hard. Basic programming isn't hard, programming at a professional level can get to be quite difficult.
My issue comes in when you get these asshats talking about how "programming is so easy anyone can do it". No, it's extremely difficult to do at a professional level. We're not paid what we are because we do something easy.
Yes, but in essence everyone is just saying "let's get children able to read and write at a basic level not "let's turn every child into Shakespeare or Tolstoy".
Wait... 3 hours a month, for $120 that month? Something fishy about that.
That $40/hour you're paying is more than skilled professionals get around here....
OP is presumably just showing off how rich he is. It's like casually mentioning that your Bugati gets 4mpg and costs more to insure than the average teacher's annual salary.
"$4 an hour? $400 an hour? It's all the same to me, I earn $1.8million a day in interest on my investments alone".
Hikers and other outdoorsy types know you always pick a fixed and distant point to walk towards because using closer landmarks (or none at all) always results in walking in a circle. This is primarily because our legs are different lengths
When I was a steelworker (USWA) I got paid triple time if called in during holidays and vacations, and double time if called in during time off. If I was on call, I got paid 50 percent during that time period.
If you want us there, pay us.
Simple.
I imagine you had the backing of a Union. As we all know, on slashdot that amounts to declaring yourself a communist paedophile and Windows fan.
There is reception in pretty much every forest these days, even in sparsely populated countries like Sweden and Finland. This is not tge 1980s.
It's an indirect way of saying that the US has the best and bigliest forests, so there is no phone reception there, you're two days' march from the nearest civilization, etc.
If you were responsible for a billion dollar a day in revenue website, I'd expect you to have at least five people to have 24/7/365 coverage at all times without needing overtime. Six even, to handle people who quit, die, move, etc.
People here on slashdot love to believe that they are unique special geniuses who are single-handedly responsible for keeping their organisations running. Must be a dream for cynical managers who get 40 hours+ free overtime a week out of them and can churn the savings back into their own bonus pot.
Most of my co-workers probably fit into this category. I routinely answer calls in the middle of the night from management or co-workers in a bind. Generally I think the authority you are entrusted with is tied to the the amount of responsibility you assume. Some people don't care about earning 30-40% more if it means any kind of commitment to the job and that's fine. Other people, they pick up the phone.
If your organisation relies on you answering calls in the middle of the night (when you're off duty) there is something wrong with your organisation. If a role needs 24/7 coverage, you need to employ at least 3 people to cover that role.
That implies galaxies are slowly becoming into existence. That is despite we can see them out to 13 billion light years. Hardly emergent.
No, I think you misunderstand the word "emergent": it means that gravity is not a fundamental force, but is a product of a more basic force, which is entropy. Hence entropic gravity.
For example, when people say (rightly or wrongly) that intelligence is simply an emergent result of sufficient brain complexity, they don't mean that intelligence doesn't exist, only that it is not a separate, magically created thing in itself.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want a pothole fixed, spraypaint a penis around it.
You learn something new every day!
Perhaps they shouldn't call it autopilot?
I really get tired of this argument. Do you even know where the term Autopilot comes from or what it means?
From Wikipedia emphasis mine:
An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of an aircraft without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required. Autopilots do not replace human operators, but instead they assist them in controlling the aircraft. This allows them to focus on broader aspects of operations such as monitoring the trajectory, weather and systems.
The autopilot in every fucking definition of the word, is an assist device for the pilot, not a replacement. It handles speed, heading, and in some cases altitude. It doesn't monitor other aircraft, it doesn't avoid collisions, it doesn't (endless list of pilot tasks).
It really, really, really doesn't matter what the technical description of "autopilot" is. In common usage, people think that it means a computer flies the plane, and Tesla deliberately use this ambiguity between literal truth and public perception for cynical marketing reasons.
I know people with auto pilots on boats and when engaged, they'll go downstairs and only pop their heads out of the cabin ever ten minutes or so. But otherwise they're watching movies or cooking or eating or using the toilet. Sometimes they'll even go to sleep if they're alone.
That's probably ok if you're in the middle of the ocean, but you wouldn't do it in a crowded harbour.
Comparing it to cruise control is stupid. Cruise control maintains your speed extremely well and doesn't ever fail catastrophically.
Tell you what. You get on the highway and put on a non-adaptive cruise control like the one in my car and let it maintain your speed while traffic slows in front of you. Let me know how that didn't "fail catastrophically" when you are done rear ending the car in front of you.
Every accident with the Tesla autopilot I've seen has been idiots relying too heavily on the system thinking it replaces the driver instead of assisting the driver. While it's a capable system, the person behind the wheel still has to use their brain and pay attention and take control of the car.
The point is that you are not lied to and told that your non-adaptive cruise control will magically slow you down if something gets in the way, so you keep watching the fucking road.
It is a fundamental flaw to have a system where you can sort of half watch the road most of the time and probably not have much of an accident unless you're unlucky.
With normal driving, you basically have to concentrate 100% of the time. A self driving car would mean you had to concentrate 0% of the time. It is absurd to have something in between.
We have a name for the Tesla system. Adaptive cruise control with enhanced lane departure warning.
Here on slashdot we call that "AI".
I faced the same problem.
I changed jobs.
No job is worth bending over backwards for it. I'm good enough to write the rules. You don't like me coming in at 10-11, I find someone who does.
Similarly, if you're not saving enough money each month for your retirement, then just get a job where you earn three times as much. Problem solved.
Twat.
I work as a high class escort in the UK.
This comes straight in at Number One on my "sentences I never expected to read on slashdot" chart.
If free market principles are to take their natural course then all this crap going on with Youtube should be a temporary disruption.
YouTube are perfectly following market principles. They have reacted to their advertisers not wanting to be associated with particular topics. It's a financial decision, not a moral one.
You appear to be falling for the right wing fallacy that free market=free speech.
Youtube doesn't want their money.
Then they are neglecting their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders.
Nonsense. YouTube or any other business are perfectly entitled to reject money from, and not do business with people promoting Nazism or Paedophilia (or whatever unequivocably bad thing you choose). There is no moral or legal obligation for businesses to take every possible money-making opportunity.
Mainly by being too incompetent to change too much the society Obama left him.
If he is getting good results, then maybe you should view his incompetence as a positive attribute.
You can't rely on Trump's incompetence, not everyone working for him is also an idiot.
But, if you are a true believer in democracy . . . it should be right of UK voters to decide to kick out foreigners . . . correct . . . ?
The UK is a parliamentary democracy. If the UK population voted for an absolutely racist/xenophobic government at a General Election, that would be completely different from a marginal majority in a stupid fucking Referendum that no one took seriously until it was too late.
Voting in such a government would probably start an actual Civil War, but that is another issue.
Women posting to the internet are a myth.
You clearly don't have teenage daughters.
What was her name? She probably is a chubbed up porker now. They all go to seed.
Whereas you are, of course, still the tautly muscled, devilishly handsome Adonis you always were.
I look at it as writing. Almost everyone learns to write, almost none of them will ever write for a living though. Writing at a basic level isn't too hard, writing a novel is quite hard. Basic programming isn't hard, programming at a professional level can get to be quite difficult.
My issue comes in when you get these asshats talking about how "programming is so easy anyone can do it". No, it's extremely difficult to do at a professional level. We're not paid what we are because we do something easy.
Yes, but in essence everyone is just saying "let's get children able to read and write at a basic level not "let's turn every child into Shakespeare or Tolstoy".
Wait... 3 hours a month, for $120 that month? Something fishy about that.
That $40/hour you're paying is more than skilled professionals get around here....
OP is presumably just showing off how rich he is. It's like casually mentioning that your Bugati gets 4mpg and costs more to insure than the average teacher's annual salary.
"$4 an hour? $400 an hour? It's all the same to me, I earn $1.8million a day in interest on my investments alone".
Hikers and other outdoorsy types know you always pick a fixed and distant point to walk towards because using closer landmarks (or none at all) always results in walking in a circle. This is primarily because our legs are different lengths
That sounds like something off Brass Eye.
I'd also charge a minimum of 2 hours for answering the phone too.
If you can charge for your time, you don't have a boss, you have a client.
When I was a steelworker (USWA) I got paid triple time if called in during holidays and vacations, and double time if called in during time off. If I was on call, I got paid 50 percent during that time period.
If you want us there, pay us.
Simple.
I imagine you had the backing of a Union. As we all know, on slashdot that amounts to declaring yourself a communist paedophile and Windows fan.
There is reception in pretty much every forest these days, even in sparsely populated countries like Sweden and Finland. This is not tge 1980s.
It's an indirect way of saying that the US has the best and bigliest forests, so there is no phone reception there, you're two days' march from the nearest civilization, etc.
if I feel stressed I'll put it on silent when I go to bed
You don't have your phone on silent when you go to bed anyway? How do you sleep?
There is a clear distinction between effective crisis management and Business As Usual.
I was once called into the office because I did not yet take my two hours extra time I was entitled to.
No offence, but you're a fucking idiot then.
If you were responsible for a billion dollar a day in revenue website, I'd expect you to have at least five people to have 24/7/365 coverage at all times without needing overtime. Six even, to handle people who quit, die, move, etc.
People here on slashdot love to believe that they are unique special geniuses who are single-handedly responsible for keeping their organisations running. Must be a dream for cynical managers who get 40 hours+ free overtime a week out of them and can churn the savings back into their own bonus pot.
Most of my co-workers probably fit into this category. I routinely answer calls in the middle of the night from management or co-workers in a bind. Generally I think the authority you are entrusted with is tied to the the amount of responsibility you assume. Some people don't care about earning 30-40% more if it means any kind of commitment to the job and that's fine. Other people, they pick up the phone.
If your organisation relies on you answering calls in the middle of the night (when you're off duty) there is something wrong with your organisation. If a role needs 24/7 coverage, you need to employ at least 3 people to cover that role.
gravity is an emergent force?
That implies galaxies are slowly becoming into existence. That is despite we can see them out to 13 billion light years. Hardly emergent.
No, I think you misunderstand the word "emergent": it means that gravity is not a fundamental force, but is a product of a more basic force, which is entropy. Hence entropic gravity.
For example, when people say (rightly or wrongly) that intelligence is simply an emergent result of sufficient brain complexity, they don't mean that intelligence doesn't exist, only that it is not a separate, magically created thing in itself.