"humans are able to figure out a priori that something is likely to halt or not; computers are not; therefore humans are not computers and consciousness cannot be reduced to computation"
So you're saying that his whole argument is based on incorrect facts? There is nothing showing that humans can figure out if an arbitrary program will halt (you know given infinite input and all the other jazz). Likewise there is nothing saying computers can't figure out halting for certain algorithms.
The argument boils down to "computers aren't as intelligent at creative problem solving as humans and therefore humans cannot be reduced to computation." Which is bunk. It's like saying "monkeys aren't as intelligent at creative problems as humans and therefore humans cannot be reduced to biological neurons."
You spend fuel or material or energy somewhere, the cost may be low compared to current approaches but there is cost.
The rest of the time, they can just be allowed to impact the ribbon, as it is basically bulletproof.
Lovely, so you know nothing of orbital mechanics, so we should listen to you now clearly uneducated opinion why exactly?
Here's a hint for you, orbital speeds make bullets look downright leisurely and kinetic energy does not go up linearly. We're talking energies where objects don't deform, they simply vaporize. Small impacts will puncture or erode the ribbon (likely outright puncture due to the thinness of it). Larger impacts will do the same but over a larger area. Do enough damage and the ribbon breaks outright. The only reason you may not care is because you can fix the damage quickly enough but that does not mean the ribbon is immune to said damage.
Inflation exists for very good economic reasons. As I understand it, inflation allows for a much more fluid economy than a lack of it (or worse deflation). More lending, more spending, no early salary decreases (which people really don't like I'm guessing), etc.
So even if by some miracle bitcoins were a stable currency rather than a commodity their value compared to other currencies would drop over time since the economy they're tied to it shrinking compared to other economies.
The view that minting new money (by whatever means) is the only source of inflation is one of those silly views that supporters of bitcoin stick to despite everything else saying otherwise. Look at the housing market, have houses suddenly become a dozen times more numerous? Has gold become so scarce that it's worth so much more than a decade ago? And so on.
So you want to get rid of the currency based on reasonable expectation, that it will never return to previous value and dumping it will provide you more benefit.
No you don't. By your logic stock prices would be a lot more stable than they are. I'll give a simple example. You have two people A and B. A dumps all his bitcoins and buys the stable BitStamps currency. A then buys bitcoins again when they hit the bottom of their value. B stays with his bitcoins. A makes a lot more money on the deal than B. The rational choice is to act like A.
That aside, the value of bitcoins is based on the economy they are part of. A sudden inflation (or other instability) may make people reasonably assume that merchants may stop taking bitcoins (ie: the bitcoin economy goes bust or contracts). As a result the currency will not return to it's previous value in the near future. Or do you assume that the relative (and ever changing) value of world currencies compared to each other is due simply to how much governments print of them?
The key here is you predict the currency will *keep* devaluating until it's no longer useable.
No I don't, I predict periods of deflation and period of inflation. A highly unstable currency.
However with BitCoins you are not left in the dark and there's no central authority that can screw you up.
And no central authority to manage the rate at this inflation and deflation happen. Ever look at the dollar before the 1900s when it was all gold based? To call it hideously unstable would be an understatement. All those events and related economics upturns/downturns were not due to speculation about new source of gold.
Basically, it would have been nice if the people who invented BC had taken Econ 201 or any sort of engineering class dealing with control theory.
Good luck with that. Their view on economics is based on a single to them unshakable view:
Everything the government and federal reserve do is evil, counterproductive and without any redeeming value.
As a result a fiat currency must have no advantages or reason for existence except to oppress the people. The gold standard must be superior in all ways. And if the gold standard is superior then something like bitcoin must be even better.
"Real" currencies with economies aren't at all immune to this problem, good modern governments however spend a lot of effort making sure they don't succumb to them. Japan, notably, has failed miserably at it in the recent past.
The United States prior to the early 1900s is another good example. I believe that was fueled by a limited and unchanging supply of gold in the colonies. A plot of inflation/deflation looks like pure noise (aside from one following the other) before the 1900s.
The fun thing about bubble is that they eventually pop.
So image when a guy who owns a lot of bitcoins decides to suddenly dump them on the market. Sudden inflation. So another guy does the same to protect his investment (ie: by buying a more stable investment). More inflation. So a third guy does it. Rinse and repeat. Probably 90% of it being done by automated scripts.
You're contradicting yourself and failing at logic.
If they can make automated probes that blanket the galaxy than they already know we're here. You can't hide from something like that. When you make automated probes having one visit every single start is relatively easy. And we're not exactly very well hidden or exotic forms of life, just carbon and oxygen. They'd have known there was life on this planet for billions of years.
The first time we sent out a radio signal they'd have known. The first time we build large scale structures they'd have known. The first time we lit up out cities at night they'd have known. The first time we set of a nuke they'd have definitely known. And so on and so on.
A reader of Less Wrong by any chance? If not I recommend you look into it.
I agree with your points as a philosophical ideal but I just don't think they'd ever work for more than a niche number of people.
Plato's Cave should be taught to kindergarteners, and the lesson reinforced at every grade until achieving one's doctoral degree.
And most people wouldn't comprehend it or they'd draw the wrong conclusion from it. Remember, half of the world has an IQ under 100. I suspect many other are simply not wired for properly comprehending it although I can't be certain (if religion is due to genetics for example *shrug*). And blind belief is reassuring, we do not wish to be wrong and not seeing the counter-argument achieves that. As you said it requires rigor and, frankly, just look at the average American.
Monoculture is inherently unstable, unsustainable and doomed to collapse.
But until it does it will overcome and consume anything in it's way. Not always but often enough especially if it's not against another monoculture. That is the power of blind belief. It doesn't pause or stop or redirect or reconsider. Eventually it will die but the alternatives won't be around to see it.
Your facts are out of date, measurements have been done and data has been released. Not of the reactor, which is irrelevant to those not involved in the cleanup unless bad things happens again, but of the area around the power plant. Decent quantities of radiation (cesium-137) have been detected in some areas. Enough to essentially leave the areas uninhabitable without significant cleanup costs. I think I've read estimates of up to 200 square km being unsafely radioactive but don't quote me on that. Not instant death, of course, but you wouldn't want to live there for years or grow food there.
Detailed ground measurements are, asfaik, not yet being done (or at least not being released) however very detailed fly-overs were done (and the data released).
The US has absurdly restricting drugs laws and has the largest prison population in the world per capita. Buying cold medicine requires providing your driver's license. Buying compressed air requires being over 18 in at least some states. In Chicago it's illegal to buy a can of spray paint and I think certain permanent markers and etching chemicals as well. Many other places have various other restrictions on such materials as well. Dildos and vibrators were in illegal in Texas till a few years ago. They are illegal to sell in Alabama among other states and the supreme court has no problems with it. The FCC has it's own set of rules as well. Then there's all the federal anti-obscenity laws and the giant ongoing clusterfuck around them. Yes, perfectly constitutional and people are still being prosecuted under them.
I'm not saying European nations don't have similar laws but somehow claiming the US is a bastion of unlimited freedom is absurd.
I never said Europe was better or worse, simply that the views on what is appropriate for children are in a large part merely artifacts of culture.
You cite things which have nothing to do with the discussion at hand which was entertainment and appropriate entertainment for children. I've found nudity and violence to be the two largest differentiators.
It seems from your post that you like nudity, don't particularly like violence and dislike Europe. None for any rational reasons, it's simply what your emotions tell you. As such you are forced to find unrelated reasons (read: rational justifications) to claim Europe is worse because you can't accept that they are better than the US by your own standards in this area. Maybe I'm wrong but that's what your post tells me.
And those are laws, as opposed to this, which is the action of a private a company.
The Hays Code and Comics Code Authority were also purely private entities. Odd how they had monopoly control over every movie and comic that came out in the US for decades.
A private monopoly creating de-facto laws is worse than the government creating actual laws. Actual laws can be described, challenged, found unconstitutional, repealed and in general come under a well established system of public scrutiny. Private laws do not and cannot.
The greatest trick to making someone do something is to make them think they're not being made to do something.
Not all subjects are fine at all ages. Reading some topics, or viewing some materials at too young an age really can harm a child psychologically, introduce them to concepts their mind isn't mature enough to handle yet and the results can be quite harmful.
Which subjects? Please cite studies.
Europe and many other countries around the world seem perfectly fine despite being very open about nudity. In fact, they'd probably claim the US is a degenerate bunch of Neanderthals for how much violence we allow our children to see.
So which standard are you using? Is nudity okay for your children as many Europeans would claim or is violence okay as many Americans would claim? Which one is based on science and which one is based on arbitrary cultural views? Well?
In reality, a rating system compresses a very complex multi-dimensional set of movie descriptors into a single axis. No matter how much you may delude yourself into thinking there is science behind how it's done, there isn't. It's an arbitrary choice based on culture. Not your culture, btw, but that of whomever makes the decision on the rating.
The students at these universities do not have experience.
That is their fault. Summer internships, open source projects, volunteer work, small contract work and so on. Not as valuable as large company experience maybe but it does in fact count.
Of course, who you know matters even more and if you're at a decent university you should have ways to meet people from companies. In general, you know, interact with people, play the social game, get them to pass on your resume.
In other words, if you are worth more than an idiot with a bottom of the barrel degree-mill "education" then you have to show it somehow.
There's truck loads of IT and CS work in the Bay Area. Frankly if you're not finding any then the problem is you and not the job market. The myth that you can throw a few resumes at a company and instantly get hired was never true.
First of all you need connections and networking. That is how you get your foot in the door. In the Bay Area you have absolutely no excuses for not getting a dozen new connections a week if not more. Not counting your school, friends and so on. There are so many technology based events and meetups happening that it's hard not to meet people from companies. People that if you leave a decent impression on will pass your resume on. Or who may give you contract work. Or know those who are looking for someone to hire.
Second of all you need experience: internships, volunteering or open source work. If you're unemployed then you have no excuse for not getting some under your belt in that time. What are you doing with all that free time?
* Business: 40% of college majors are already in business, calling it over-saturated is an understatement. In other words expect to make a low to middling salary unless you finish top from a top school and have the right connections.
* Law: Contrary to your flawed perceptions most lawyers make crap money. Unless you're damn brilliant, finish top of your class at a top school and work your ass off at a top firm. Otherwise enjoy filling paperwork in Bumfuck, Iowa for barely more than what you're paying back for your loans.
Why do you keep assuming that what google has now is what will go onto roads in any sort of production capacity. 10 years ago what google has now would have been called science fiction. In 2004 no AI car could get even close to finishing an empty desert track. In 2005 they were competing on how quickly they finish. This technology is moving quickly at an insane rate.
To stop a car going 60 with a 1 second delay for reaction, takes 6.8seconds and 302 feet. Google's car will stop in just under 4.8 seconds and 240 feet. Even the most alert driver will have a problem if they are following at the normal 1 car length per 10 mph. There simply isn't enough time or distance in an emergency stop. Don't take my word for it, go read Google's own report.
Sigh. Why do you keep saying the google car will stop in 4.8 seconds? Just because it can doesn't mean it will.
You are assuming a situation where a human driver would rear end the car in front but an AI but braking more quickly would not. I find that an unlikely situation assuming the AI car actually driver properly unlike a human. You are assuming that just because an AI can stop quickly it will shave the safety margins more than a human. An AI is not a human. An AI will not drive more aggressively simply because it can. A human will.
You keep making example more complicated to fit your views.
My point was very very simple. In a situation where a human driver is able to stop in time but is rear ended the AI could prevent it. The human driver stops in 6.8 seconds. The AI stops in 7.8 seconds. The car behind is more likely to stop in time with an AI in front since they have more time.
In a situation where the human driver would not be able to stop in time then of course the driver may be rear ended. However that is a maybe. If it was a human driver than they would themselves rear end someone 100% of the time.
In other words in both situations the AI would decrease the chance of an accident. As a result over all an AI would decrease the chance on an accident on the highway. I never said it will prevent all accidents only that it will prevent some.
I don't assume anything about the biggest cause of rear end highway crashes.
You are assuming that because circumstances make crashes more likely there is no human factor involved. The NHTSA does not say that, that is what you're assuming. By your logic every time someone break violently or rear ends someone on a congested highway there would be a five mile long pile up of rear ended cars.
The NHTSA does.
The NHTSA (or at least studies) also say that human failure accounts for a large percentage of accidents. Human failure such as tail gating (thus forcing you to brake more quickly and giving the car behind less time/distance to break), distraction (thus not reacting quickly enough and giving the car behind less time/distance to break), lack of situational awareness (thus not reacting quickly enough and giving the car behind less time/distance to break) and so on.
Just as you said the AI car will react quicker than a human driven car, meaning there is even less time for the human driven car behind the AI car to react.
No, there is MORE time for the human driver behind to react if there is an AI driving the car in front. That very simple fact is what you're apparently unable to understand. Which says rather frightening things about your skill at driving.
Let me explain this in very simple terms.
The car behind only knows you're stopping based on your tail lights. Assuming it's not some giant SUV or some such. In other words, until you start braking the car behind you has no idea it should break. If it takes a human 0.75 seconds to start breaking (and that's for an alert driver expecting to break) then the car behind has 0.75 seconds less time and distance to brake. That is over 66 feet at 60mph. Half the distance the average car need to stop at from 60mph. If an AI reacts instantly than the car behind has 0.75 seconds more to break. If you don't think that matters than you're delusional.
The reaction time is, btw, up to 1.5 for unexpected situations and up to 3 seconds if a driver is distracted. I'll let you do the math on exactly how far a car travels in that time.
Furthermore an AI would not commit the same failures that a human driver would. For example, it would not tail gate and as such would provide even more time for the driver behind to break.
It's not like plutonium comes out of the ground in nice pre-made bars. They got it into the right form once already and they can do it again the same way (or a similar way). Worst case they treat the whole thing as nuclear waste and deal with it like any other waste (ie: bury it somewhere).
Over 3 weeks time the situation changed from a big problem to a Chernobyl size problem. I don't call that "under control".
No, the problem didn't change at all. They simply finally figured out just how much radiation was released to begin with. Most into the ocean and still less than 10% of Chernobyl altogether.
I wouldn't call a 30 mile radius area that's evacuated and possibly uninhabitable for the years to come "just annoying".
They lose some land area (I think worst case is 800 square km last I checked and probably less) but it doesn't kill or injure anyone beyond that. The existence of the restricted land doesn't hurt anyone and while it'd be better if it was usable the impact isn't that world shattering.
You miss my point yet again, you create complex situations which not even your data justifies.
Why do you assume someone swerving into your lane is the biggest cause of such rear end highway crashes? I would assume, from data I see, the most likely cause is you waiting too long to react to the person in front of you slowing down. Either due to reaction time or excessive tail gating. As a result you get rear ended because the person behind you did the same thing but didn't quite make it.
In other words, had you reacted instantly and slowed down gradually in response to the person in front there would have been no crash. Why do you assume an AI car cannot do that simple maneuver?
Slashdot Mirror
"humans are able to figure out a priori that something is likely to halt or not; computers are not; therefore humans are not computers and consciousness cannot be reduced to computation"
So you're saying that his whole argument is based on incorrect facts? There is nothing showing that humans can figure out if an arbitrary program will halt (you know given infinite input and all the other jazz). Likewise there is nothing saying computers can't figure out halting for certain algorithms.
The argument boils down to "computers aren't as intelligent at creative problem solving as humans and therefore humans cannot be reduced to computation." Which is bunk. It's like saying "monkeys aren't as intelligent at creative problems as humans and therefore humans cannot be reduced to biological neurons."
There's a surge in cancer rates and all kinds of other lovelies after every nuclear accident
No there isn't.
it was massive WORLDWIDE after chernobyl
No such thing happened.
Mars
Moons get in the way making it complicated.
literally no fuel expended
You spend fuel or material or energy somewhere, the cost may be low compared to current approaches but there is cost.
The rest of the time, they can just be allowed to impact the ribbon, as it is basically bulletproof.
Lovely, so you know nothing of orbital mechanics, so we should listen to you now clearly uneducated opinion why exactly?
Here's a hint for you, orbital speeds make bullets look downright leisurely and kinetic energy does not go up linearly. We're talking energies where objects don't deform, they simply vaporize. Small impacts will puncture or erode the ribbon (likely outright puncture due to the thinness of it). Larger impacts will do the same but over a larger area. Do enough damage and the ribbon breaks outright. The only reason you may not care is because you can fix the damage quickly enough but that does not mean the ribbon is immune to said damage.
Inflation exists for very good economic reasons. As I understand it, inflation allows for a much more fluid economy than a lack of it (or worse deflation). More lending, more spending, no early salary decreases (which people really don't like I'm guessing), etc.
So even if by some miracle bitcoins were a stable currency rather than a commodity their value compared to other currencies would drop over time since the economy they're tied to it shrinking compared to other economies.
The view that minting new money (by whatever means) is the only source of inflation is one of those silly views that supporters of bitcoin stick to despite everything else saying otherwise. Look at the housing market, have houses suddenly become a dozen times more numerous? Has gold become so scarce that it's worth so much more than a decade ago? And so on.
So you want to get rid of the currency based on reasonable expectation, that it will never return to previous value and dumping it will provide you more benefit.
No you don't. By your logic stock prices would be a lot more stable than they are. I'll give a simple example. You have two people A and B. A dumps all his bitcoins and buys the stable BitStamps currency. A then buys bitcoins again when they hit the bottom of their value. B stays with his bitcoins. A makes a lot more money on the deal than B. The rational choice is to act like A.
That aside, the value of bitcoins is based on the economy they are part of. A sudden inflation (or other instability) may make people reasonably assume that merchants may stop taking bitcoins (ie: the bitcoin economy goes bust or contracts). As a result the currency will not return to it's previous value in the near future. Or do you assume that the relative (and ever changing) value of world currencies compared to each other is due simply to how much governments print of them?
The key here is you predict the currency will *keep* devaluating until it's no longer useable.
No I don't, I predict periods of deflation and period of inflation. A highly unstable currency.
However with BitCoins you are not left in the dark and there's no central authority that can screw you up.
And no central authority to manage the rate at this inflation and deflation happen. Ever look at the dollar before the 1900s when it was all gold based? To call it hideously unstable would be an understatement. All those events and related economics upturns/downturns were not due to speculation about new source of gold.
Basically, it would have been nice if the people who invented BC had taken Econ 201 or any sort of engineering class dealing with control theory.
Good luck with that. Their view on economics is based on a single to them unshakable view:
Everything the government and federal reserve do is evil, counterproductive and without any redeeming value.
As a result a fiat currency must have no advantages or reason for existence except to oppress the people. The gold standard must be superior in all ways. And if the gold standard is superior then something like bitcoin must be even better.
"Real" currencies with economies aren't at all immune to this problem, good modern governments however spend a lot of effort making sure they don't succumb to them. Japan, notably, has failed miserably at it in the recent past.
The United States prior to the early 1900s is another good example. I believe that was fueled by a limited and unchanging supply of gold in the colonies. A plot of inflation/deflation looks like pure noise (aside from one following the other) before the 1900s.
New Bitcoins can be created
Only up to a finite limit then no more new ones, ever.
old ones never become obsolete
Old ones can be lost (ie: if the wallet they are in is deleted).
I hear the stock market is supposed to work the same way.
Ever wonder why people are told not to keep all their savings in stocks?
You've just described a bubble.
The fun thing about bubble is that they eventually pop.
So image when a guy who owns a lot of bitcoins decides to suddenly dump them on the market. Sudden inflation. So another guy does the same to protect his investment (ie: by buying a more stable investment). More inflation. So a third guy does it. Rinse and repeat. Probably 90% of it being done by automated scripts.
Instant massive inflation.
You're contradicting yourself and failing at logic.
If they can make automated probes that blanket the galaxy than they already know we're here. You can't hide from something like that. When you make automated probes having one visit every single start is relatively easy. And we're not exactly very well hidden or exotic forms of life, just carbon and oxygen. They'd have known there was life on this planet for billions of years.
The first time we sent out a radio signal they'd have known. The first time we build large scale structures they'd have known. The first time we lit up out cities at night they'd have known. The first time we set of a nuke they'd have definitely known. And so on and so on.
A reader of Less Wrong by any chance? If not I recommend you look into it.
I agree with your points as a philosophical ideal but I just don't think they'd ever work for more than a niche number of people.
Plato's Cave should be taught to kindergarteners, and the lesson reinforced at every grade until achieving one's doctoral degree.
And most people wouldn't comprehend it or they'd draw the wrong conclusion from it. Remember, half of the world has an IQ under 100. I suspect many other are simply not wired for properly comprehending it although I can't be certain (if religion is due to genetics for example *shrug*). And blind belief is reassuring, we do not wish to be wrong and not seeing the counter-argument achieves that. As you said it requires rigor and, frankly, just look at the average American.
Monoculture is inherently unstable, unsustainable and doomed to collapse.
But until it does it will overcome and consume anything in it's way. Not always but often enough especially if it's not against another monoculture. That is the power of blind belief. It doesn't pause or stop or redirect or reconsider. Eventually it will die but the alternatives won't be around to see it.
Your facts are out of date, measurements have been done and data has been released. Not of the reactor, which is irrelevant to those not involved in the cleanup unless bad things happens again, but of the area around the power plant. Decent quantities of radiation (cesium-137) have been detected in some areas. Enough to essentially leave the areas uninhabitable without significant cleanup costs. I think I've read estimates of up to 200 square km being unsafely radioactive but don't quote me on that. Not instant death, of course, but you wouldn't want to live there for years or grow food there.
Detailed ground measurements are, asfaik, not yet being done (or at least not being released) however very detailed fly-overs were done (and the data released).
http://www.japanprobe.com/2011/05/10/fukushima-radiation-map/
Also, to play your game since I'm bored.
The US has absurdly restricting drugs laws and has the largest prison population in the world per capita. Buying cold medicine requires providing your driver's license. Buying compressed air requires being over 18 in at least some states. In Chicago it's illegal to buy a can of spray paint and I think certain permanent markers and etching chemicals as well. Many other places have various other restrictions on such materials as well. Dildos and vibrators were in illegal in Texas till a few years ago. They are illegal to sell in Alabama among other states and the supreme court has no problems with it. The FCC has it's own set of rules as well. Then there's all the federal anti-obscenity laws and the giant ongoing clusterfuck around them. Yes, perfectly constitutional and people are still being prosecuted under them.
I'm not saying European nations don't have similar laws but somehow claiming the US is a bastion of unlimited freedom is absurd.
I never said Europe was better or worse, simply that the views on what is appropriate for children are in a large part merely artifacts of culture.
You cite things which have nothing to do with the discussion at hand which was entertainment and appropriate entertainment for children. I've found nudity and violence to be the two largest differentiators.
It seems from your post that you like nudity, don't particularly like violence and dislike Europe. None for any rational reasons, it's simply what your emotions tell you. As such you are forced to find unrelated reasons (read: rational justifications) to claim Europe is worse because you can't accept that they are better than the US by your own standards in this area. Maybe I'm wrong but that's what your post tells me.
And those are laws, as opposed to this, which is the action of a private a company.
The Hays Code and Comics Code Authority were also purely private entities. Odd how they had monopoly control over every movie and comic that came out in the US for decades.
A private monopoly creating de-facto laws is worse than the government creating actual laws. Actual laws can be described, challenged, found unconstitutional, repealed and in general come under a well established system of public scrutiny. Private laws do not and cannot.
The greatest trick to making someone do something is to make them think they're not being made to do something.
So Hertz has to have a guy sitting in every car that people rent to prevent someone from using the rented car to commit a crime?
You think the school pays for that? That's what grants are for.
Not all subjects are fine at all ages. Reading some topics, or viewing some materials at too young an age really can harm a child psychologically, introduce them to concepts their mind isn't mature enough to handle yet and the results can be quite harmful.
Which subjects? Please cite studies.
Europe and many other countries around the world seem perfectly fine despite being very open about nudity. In fact, they'd probably claim the US is a degenerate bunch of Neanderthals for how much violence we allow our children to see.
So which standard are you using? Is nudity okay for your children as many Europeans would claim or is violence okay as many Americans would claim? Which one is based on science and which one is based on arbitrary cultural views? Well?
In reality, a rating system compresses a very complex multi-dimensional set of movie descriptors into a single axis. No matter how much you may delude yourself into thinking there is science behind how it's done, there isn't. It's an arbitrary choice based on culture. Not your culture, btw, but that of whomever makes the decision on the rating.
The students at these universities do not have experience.
That is their fault. Summer internships, open source projects, volunteer work, small contract work and so on. Not as valuable as large company experience maybe but it does in fact count.
Of course, who you know matters even more and if you're at a decent university you should have ways to meet people from companies. In general, you know, interact with people, play the social game, get them to pass on your resume.
In other words, if you are worth more than an idiot with a bottom of the barrel degree-mill "education" then you have to show it somehow.
There's truck loads of IT and CS work in the Bay Area. Frankly if you're not finding any then the problem is you and not the job market. The myth that you can throw a few resumes at a company and instantly get hired was never true.
First of all you need connections and networking. That is how you get your foot in the door. In the Bay Area you have absolutely no excuses for not getting a dozen new connections a week if not more. Not counting your school, friends and so on. There are so many technology based events and meetups happening that it's hard not to meet people from companies. People that if you leave a decent impression on will pass your resume on. Or who may give you contract work. Or know those who are looking for someone to hire.
Second of all you need experience: internships, volunteering or open source work. If you're unemployed then you have no excuse for not getting some under your belt in that time. What are you doing with all that free time?
Misconceptions are so much fun.
* Business: 40% of college majors are already in business, calling it over-saturated is an understatement. In other words expect to make a low to middling salary unless you finish top from a top school and have the right connections.
* Law: Contrary to your flawed perceptions most lawyers make crap money. Unless you're damn brilliant, finish top of your class at a top school and work your ass off at a top firm. Otherwise enjoy filling paperwork in Bumfuck, Iowa for barely more than what you're paying back for your loans.
Why do you keep assuming that what google has now is what will go onto roads in any sort of production capacity. 10 years ago what google has now would have been called science fiction. In 2004 no AI car could get even close to finishing an empty desert track. In 2005 they were competing on how quickly they finish. This technology is moving quickly at an insane rate.
To stop a car going 60 with a 1 second delay for reaction, takes 6.8seconds and 302 feet. Google's car will stop in just under 4.8 seconds and 240 feet. Even the most alert driver will have a problem if they are following at the normal 1 car length per 10 mph. There simply isn't enough time or distance in an emergency stop. Don't take my word for it, go read Google's own report.
Sigh. Why do you keep saying the google car will stop in 4.8 seconds? Just because it can doesn't mean it will.
You are assuming a situation where a human driver would rear end the car in front but an AI but braking more quickly would not. I find that an unlikely situation assuming the AI car actually driver properly unlike a human. You are assuming that just because an AI can stop quickly it will shave the safety margins more than a human. An AI is not a human. An AI will not drive more aggressively simply because it can. A human will.
You keep making example more complicated to fit your views.
My point was very very simple. In a situation where a human driver is able to stop in time but is rear ended the AI could prevent it. The human driver stops in 6.8 seconds. The AI stops in 7.8 seconds. The car behind is more likely to stop in time with an AI in front since they have more time.
In a situation where the human driver would not be able to stop in time then of course the driver may be rear ended. However that is a maybe. If it was a human driver than they would themselves rear end someone 100% of the time.
In other words in both situations the AI would decrease the chance of an accident. As a result over all an AI would decrease the chance on an accident on the highway. I never said it will prevent all accidents only that it will prevent some.
I don't assume anything about the biggest cause of rear end highway crashes.
You are assuming that because circumstances make crashes more likely there is no human factor involved. The NHTSA does not say that, that is what you're assuming. By your logic every time someone break violently or rear ends someone on a congested highway there would be a five mile long pile up of rear ended cars.
The NHTSA does.
The NHTSA (or at least studies) also say that human failure accounts for a large percentage of accidents. Human failure such as tail gating (thus forcing you to brake more quickly and giving the car behind less time/distance to break), distraction (thus not reacting quickly enough and giving the car behind less time/distance to break), lack of situational awareness (thus not reacting quickly enough and giving the car behind less time/distance to break) and so on.
Just as you said the AI car will react quicker than a human driven car, meaning there is even less time for the human driven car behind the AI car to react.
No, there is MORE time for the human driver behind to react if there is an AI driving the car in front. That very simple fact is what you're apparently unable to understand. Which says rather frightening things about your skill at driving.
Let me explain this in very simple terms.
The car behind only knows you're stopping based on your tail lights. Assuming it's not some giant SUV or some such. In other words, until you start braking the car behind you has no idea it should break. If it takes a human 0.75 seconds to start breaking (and that's for an alert driver expecting to break) then the car behind has 0.75 seconds less time and distance to brake. That is over 66 feet at 60mph. Half the distance the average car need to stop at from 60mph. If an AI reacts instantly than the car behind has 0.75 seconds more to break. If you don't think that matters than you're delusional.
The reaction time is, btw, up to 1.5 for unexpected situations and up to 3 seconds if a driver is distracted. I'll let you do the math on exactly how far a car travels in that time.
Furthermore an AI would not commit the same failures that a human driver would. For example, it would not tail gate and as such would provide even more time for the driver behind to break.
It's not like plutonium comes out of the ground in nice pre-made bars. They got it into the right form once already and they can do it again the same way (or a similar way). Worst case they treat the whole thing as nuclear waste and deal with it like any other waste (ie: bury it somewhere).
Over 3 weeks time the situation changed from a big problem to a Chernobyl size problem. I don't call that "under control".
No, the problem didn't change at all. They simply finally figured out just how much radiation was released to begin with. Most into the ocean and still less than 10% of Chernobyl altogether.
I wouldn't call a 30 mile radius area that's evacuated and possibly uninhabitable for the years to come "just annoying".
They lose some land area (I think worst case is 800 square km last I checked and probably less) but it doesn't kill or injure anyone beyond that. The existence of the restricted land doesn't hurt anyone and while it'd be better if it was usable the impact isn't that world shattering.
You miss my point yet again, you create complex situations which not even your data justifies.
Why do you assume someone swerving into your lane is the biggest cause of such rear end highway crashes? I would assume, from data I see, the most likely cause is you waiting too long to react to the person in front of you slowing down. Either due to reaction time or excessive tail gating. As a result you get rear ended because the person behind you did the same thing but didn't quite make it.
In other words, had you reacted instantly and slowed down gradually in response to the person in front there would have been no crash. Why do you assume an AI car cannot do that simple maneuver?