"In the last 10 years front end software development has gotten really complex. Gulp, Grunt, Sass, 35+ different mobile device screen sizes and 15 major browsers to code for, has made the front end skillset very valuable."
This is a silly statement, its like saying backend development is only difficult due to maven/ant. As someone who is a full stack developer (not only web but old style widgets), the vast majority of application code both front and back is plumbing / shuffling bits around, the amount that is technically difficult is diminishingly small.
I doubt that was even his choices, I imagine he was forced from above into a lot of this and this ousting is likely as a result of him arguing with the direction windows has been going.
I guess we find out if the direction changes substationally or even more directly goes down this dumpster.
Open your existing laptop, how much empty space is inside? How complex are the existing logic boards?
You're asking for a system that has a second SoC, RAM and a hard drive. Then has additional circuits so the system can share the battery & charging, a circuit to share the display, either share or duplicate the antennas, and likely you want to be able to use ports on the system too. All this in addition to the circuits and software for switching between the two systems.
Not if Facebook wants to do business in that country. For example, companies that do business in the USA but aren't headquartered there are still subject to US embargoes.
No I'm pointing out that a company developing an application in Java isn't re-writing the core Java classes which is what Oracle is going after Google for.
Programming against an API is distinctly different than a duplicate implementation of the API. (Not that the latter ought to be copyright infringement)
There must be some known position or time loss that pitting causes, so extrapolate it and apply that as a penalty if the driver pits while under a safety flag.
Personally I already use social blockers and on the rare occasions I go log into Facebook I use a fresh private browsing instance. Mozillas cookie sandboxes could have a similar effect, though super cookies or other fingerprinting methods might be circumventing it.
It would, but I wonder how relevant that is today. Anecdotally it seems like most sites are building big blobs of Javascript instead of pulling in libraries.
It seems questionable to even allow pitstops while in that state - one would think even if you can pas someone using the pits then you'd still be gaining an unfair advantage by pitting while everyone is forced to drive slowly.
SAE Level 3 automation should be illegal. Period. The backup driver simply cannot be expected to go from "no interaction with the vehicle for 1500 miles on average" to "rescuing the vehicle from an emergency".
I agree for normal usage. For testing however it should be possible, however the driver should probably be an engineer working on the program, they're much more likely to pay attention and understand what the system needs.
What's your proposed model for testing an autonomous car driving amidst normal traffic conditions that does not include actually having it drive among normal road traffic?
Simulations, no reason someone can't simply drive around recording sensor data which you then feed to your driving algorithms later to see if it behaves properly.
We should also know all know that alpha or not, there's no bug-free software. You can do all the simulations and all the testing you want, bugs and accidents will still happen. However, once they do and are fixed, the vehicles will not do the same mistakes again, which is not true for most human drivers. Human drivers also do not learn from the mistakes of other human drivers that they've never met. Autonomous cars do.
We've seen numbers that Uber's software needed human intervention every 13 mi, Google's on the other hand is 5600 mi. If we consider how far people drive Google's still needs help a few times a year, Uber's needs it a few times an hour.
Their business model is built around targeted marketing. They can't slap a "gun" tag on these videos and let advertisers pick and choose who they target? I'd be fine with Google simply stepping back and letting the free market drive the price and payout for various tags. Of course, that would mean more transparency for what happens money-wise behind the curtain.
The part that you're overlooking - even gun manufacturers probably don't want to be associated with a random YouTube channel in case the channel talks about unsafe gun use or goes on a shooting spree.
You don't have a grasp of reality. This is Facebook's business model. They sell your information
Actually it isn't Facebooks business model, they don't make any money by selling your information. What Facebook does is sells access to your eyeballs and they're willing to slice n' dice the userbase based on criteria.
Credit card companies, magazines, etc. all do however.
First of all the safety or backup driver appeared to be distracted. Although in all fairness if you're suppose to sit there hours on end without taking an active roll at driving this is probably going to happen. This is why google believes in all or nothing approach, half-baked systems are going to get people killed. While this wouldn't save the cyclist from being hurt, quick reflexes may have saved it from being fatal.
To me randomly driving around seems like poor test methodology - they should only allow the AI to drive to test specific scenarios and the time should be limited such that a human can reasonably supervise it. Otherwse they should have a human drive a vehicle collecting sensor data which can be used in simulations. Unlike a person, an algorithm doen't know the difference between a simulation and real life.
Slashdot Mirror
"In the last 10 years front end software development has gotten really complex. Gulp, Grunt, Sass, 35+ different mobile device screen sizes and 15 major browsers to code for, has made the front end skillset very valuable."
This is a silly statement, its like saying backend development is only difficult due to maven/ant. As someone who is a full stack developer (not only web but old style widgets), the vast majority of application code both front and back is plumbing / shuffling bits around, the amount that is technically difficult is diminishingly small.
Yes they should.
Stunt? The TLD required registrants to be located in the EU - this is not uncommon and many ccTLDs require it.
I doubt that was even his choices, I imagine he was forced from above into a lot of this and this ousting is likely as a result of him arguing with the direction windows has been going.
I guess we find out if the direction changes substationally or even more directly goes down this dumpster.
Open your existing laptop, how much empty space is inside? How complex are the existing logic boards?
You're asking for a system that has a second SoC, RAM and a hard drive. Then has additional circuits so the system can share the battery & charging, a circuit to share the display, either share or duplicate the antennas, and likely you want to be able to use ports on the system too. All this in addition to the circuits and software for switching between the two systems.
It would be complex, expensive, huge and stupid. Dual boot, encrypt both partitions.
Google? Why any company?
Not if Facebook wants to do business in that country. For example, companies that do business in the USA but aren't headquartered there are still subject to US embargoes.
He's CEO of a company that does business in the UK, no different than being summed by the US government.
No I'm pointing out that a company developing an application in Java isn't re-writing the core Java classes which is what Oracle is going after Google for.
Programming against an API is distinctly different than a duplicate implementation of the API. (Not that the latter ought to be copyright infringement)
If they're driving under safety one imagines that they aren't driving at a speed such that tires are degrading to any meaningful degree.
They should / could easily add a time penalty for pitting during safety to reflect what would occur if someone were to pit outside of a safety.
There must be some known position or time loss that pitting causes, so extrapolate it and apply that as a penalty if the driver pits while under a safety flag.
Personally I already use social blockers and on the rare occasions I go log into Facebook I use a fresh private browsing instance. Mozillas cookie sandboxes could have a similar effect, though super cookies or other fingerprinting methods might be circumventing it.
It would, but I wonder how relevant that is today. Anecdotally it seems like most sites are building big blobs of Javascript instead of pulling in libraries.
It seems questionable to even allow pitstops while in that state - one would think even if you can pas someone using the pits then you'd still be gaining an unfair advantage by pitting while everyone is forced to drive slowly.
SAE Level 3 automation should be illegal. Period. The backup driver simply cannot be expected to go from "no interaction with the vehicle for 1500 miles on average" to "rescuing the vehicle from an emergency".
I agree for normal usage. For testing however it should be possible, however the driver should probably be an engineer working on the program, they're much more likely to pay attention and understand what the system needs.
What's your proposed model for testing an autonomous car driving amidst normal traffic conditions that does not include actually having it drive among normal road traffic?
Simulations, no reason someone can't simply drive around recording sensor data which you then feed to your driving algorithms later to see if it behaves properly.
We should also know all know that alpha or not, there's no bug-free software. You can do all the simulations and all the testing you want, bugs and accidents will still happen. However, once they do and are fixed, the vehicles will not do the same mistakes again, which is not true for most human drivers. Human drivers also do not learn from the mistakes of other human drivers that they've never met. Autonomous cars do.
We've seen numbers that Uber's software needed human intervention every 13 mi, Google's on the other hand is 5600 mi. If we consider how far people drive Google's still needs help a few times a year, Uber's needs it a few times an hour.
People already were, the difference is that joining an online protest takes seconds or minutes while joining one in person takes hours and scheduling.
Their business model is built around targeted marketing. They can't slap a "gun" tag on these videos and let advertisers pick and choose who they target? I'd be fine with Google simply stepping back and letting the free market drive the price and payout for various tags. Of course, that would mean more transparency for what happens money-wise behind the curtain.
The part that you're overlooking - even gun manufacturers probably don't want to be associated with a random YouTube channel in case the channel talks about unsafe gun use or goes on a shooting spree.
Depends on what portion they floated and what type of shares were sold. Zuckerberg for example holds (held?) 16% of Facebook but 60% of the votes.
Youtube is demonitizing them because advertisers don't want to be associated with it.
Of course it does, one falls under Facebooks vague terms of service and one is likely outside it, and possibly local laws.
You don't have a grasp of reality. This is Facebook's business model. They sell your information
Actually it isn't Facebooks business model, they don't make any money by selling your information. What Facebook does is sells access to your eyeballs and they're willing to slice n' dice the userbase based on criteria.
Credit card companies, magazines, etc. all do however.
First of all the safety or backup driver appeared to be distracted. Although in all fairness if you're suppose to sit there hours on end without taking an active roll at driving this is probably going to happen. This is why google believes in all or nothing approach, half-baked systems are going to get people killed. While this wouldn't save the cyclist from being hurt, quick reflexes may have saved it from being fatal.
To me randomly driving around seems like poor test methodology - they should only allow the AI to drive to test specific scenarios and the time should be limited such that a human can reasonably supervise it. Otherwse they should have a human drive a vehicle collecting sensor data which can be used in simulations. Unlike a person, an algorithm doen't know the difference between a simulation and real life.