GoogleDrive is an expert system: a computer system designed from the ground up to do only one thing and do it extremely well. One does not expect such expertise of people whose driving is incidental to what they do.
If GoogleDrive was 3x less likely to cause death or serious injury than an average driver, but only 99% as good as a pro-driver, why is that an incorrect comparison? Knowing how good it is versus a tiny fraction of drivers is a distraction.
Your estimate about the timeframe to become affordable certainly doesn't help with credibility. Safe self-driving cars already exist there is no way we're not going to see affordable self-driving systems until after 2032 (your timeframe, not mine) given the cost savings in logistics, road safety improvements and benefit to elderly and disabled drivers. I'd be shocked if self-drive wasn't a standard feature on 'executive' cars before the end of the decade.
Facebook has a fundamental issue. It has allowed/encouraged users to build a large 'friend' list. This inevitably means that users get overwhelmed; so Facebook does some analysis and tries to cut the chaff and guess what you don't care about seeing. The problem is that with it's tight one size fits all friends model it has a good chance of hiding stuff I do want to see.
We were almost reaching the point where it was normal to announce big events like weddings etc on your wall. Now the people who may have done this are likely going to rely on other communication forms that they know will reach everyone.
That's basically what we get in the UK. A lot of our digital tv channels will have 2-4 different streams to choose from. Many will not have commentary and are effectively just a couple of cameras pointed at the match/game/event but it means you can see just about everything that happens.
It'll happen eventually and I'm pretty sure that the BBC doesn't police who uses iPlayer too carefully because they are happy to allow this behaviour in the meantime. They are taking the long term view that building up a large unpaying userbase will allow them to transfer them to paying service one day.
There may have been debate in the past but the law has never been remotely ambigious. You can be prosecuted for not having a license if someone can prove you were watching or recording live broadcast without a license. Obviously having a setup that would only be useful for that may not look good (a tv hooked up to an aerial) but that would likely just get them to check you more thoroughly.
There are 2 tvs in my house. The main one is used for iPlayer (not live), 4oD, ITVplayer, Sky player (not live), Netflix, DVDs and gaming and none of it requires a license. We've had inspectors call at our house twice in 6 years. Both times we explained our usages, they marked down that we didn't need a license without even asking to come in and we got left alone for ~4 years.
And one day, 20 kids ganged up on me and beat the shit out of me outside school. I got the message. It was one of the most important lessons of my life.
I got in a lot of fights as a kid and had a lot of issues. The more people tried to force me to do things the more I'd fight back. I got lucky and after leaving 3 schools ended up in a specialist one which had an ethos of non-confrontation and staff who were trained to reason with students. It was a school of about 30 kids that a normal school couldn't control and yet we left with decent grades and much more balanced lives. So although a beating may have done it for you, it might not work for many others.
At the very least you should understand the concepts of exponential growth and decay
We've been teaching it for decades and I'd bet the majority of people don't understand it. Either we need to find a better way to teach it or, if it isn't worth it, perhaps we should cut our losses and teach them something else that they are more likely to learn, remember and use.
5% of people with interest only mortgages in the UK don't know that means they won't own the house at the end. Algebra isn't what they needed, though arguably they wouldn't have listened to anything in school. I think maths is a great subject and I think it is vitally important to higher learning and reasoning but that doesn't mean it isn't worth considering if it is a waste to teach it in some circumstances.
It's a pointless argument though. The headline tax rate means nothing if the actual rate people are paying doesn't change. It's like saying that runners must carry a 50lb weight now but it won't change their speed because they did it 20 years ago and it didn't; while ignoring that 20 years ago no one actually did carry the weight and checks in place now mean they would have to.
I'm not anti-tax, I live in the UK and pay plenty thanks and that's fine. I just want to make sure that discussions about tax policy consider the reality of the situation.
We don't give the cops them in the UK and a lot of Europe and given our death rate I think well keep it that way thanks. The truth is that many Reps are right. You can have guns and less murder, but you'll need to work out why Americans are so keen to kill each other and deal with that first? If you can't work that out then less guns is a pretty good proxy.
Everyone isn't in denial. I think on some level most people understand what is going on but are willing to ignore it for more immediate benefit. The Europeans are still producing as much carbon as the Chinese so we can hardly say it's China's fault especially when America still continues to produce far more carbon (and equivalents) than both the Chinese and Europeans per head.
The Western world, mainly America, don't want to commit to polluting less than the Asians because they are worried that it will make them less competitive and "isn't fair". We built up our status as the first world on the back of massive polution, but don't want China/India etc to be able to do the same: That isn't fair and it's hardly surprising that the Asians don't think so.
The western world should pay back the 'polluting debt' we owe by giving money to countries that didn't pollute as much in the past. If we did that we could set fair and equal pollution limits on a global level. It won't happen because no one will make it to power in America (and other places) by suggesting they give trillions to other countries and increase taxes on high emission sources to force them down.
One of the dumbest solutions to the problem I have ever heard. If you make it illegal for iTunes to not sell something they sell in the US in Australia then if they can't license it for Aus they'll just have to remove it for everyone; sounds cunning. Except, a company that doesn't sell in Australia at all can't be sued, and certainly couldn't be pursued, for not allowing Australians to use their site. Netflix would shut up the Aus office and a new company AusFlix founded by them would service the Aus market.
Now if they said that you couldn't be prosecuted for pirating something that can't be bought within Australia after release, or x months from release, it would solve the issue. Can't buy a tv show? No problem, you can download it for free from the hundreds of services that would pop up to provide it.
I'm not sure if you're a troll or ignorant so I'll keep it brief. You carry a gun on the street in the UK and you will go to prison. You carry an offensive weapon and use it, even in self-defence and you will almost certainly go to prison for having it regardless.
No he used British people's response to a situation to illustrate that they perceive many French people are willing to admit openly to disliking arabs. How you expressed your nonsense point is even more dissapointing; but I suppose congratulations are in order, there's a dilbert about you
My workplace has main them the default work phones, a couple of my friends have them and my mum came home with one the other day. I use it quite a bit, as I have one provided by work, and have been impressed. That said, I still have a Android personal mobile and wouldn't exchange it because I like being able to replace almost any functionality, especially things like the launcher, which isn't supported on other smartphone OS.
100 lives and an extra $90 billion in cost is $0.9 billion a life. Personally I think that is still excessive but considerably less than you said.
Avoiding any loss of life isn't always practical. At the same time ignoring loss of life isn't the correct solution. We could probably have built the dam cheaper with more deaths, would $2 billion in savings be worth another 100 lives? We could also have avoided a lot of the deaths for a comparatively low cost, if we could have saved 50 lives for the equivalent of $100,000 each wouldn't it be worth it? The 100 figure also ignores the workers who likely died due to carbon monoxide (around 50).
The Burj Khalifa is a pretty impressive building and has one recorded death (there were probably two) but this doesn't cover suicide, heat exhaustion etc (equivalent to carbon monoxide poisoning at the damn I suppose) so it shows that big projects can get done without killing dozens of people.
If the ability to visit a store is valuable then those stores need to monetize it if they are going to compete freely with companies that don't offer physical locations. Bring in memberships like Costco or minimum spends. It might not work, because people might refuse to shop somewhere that does that, but that's life.
I bank with an online bank, I have spoken to a person perhaps 3 times in 6 years and that's fine for me. I don't want to subsidise a branch network that I don't need (I do want and am willing to pay for good phone support when I, rarely, need it). There are loads of banks to choose from, and if you want good local in person service you should be paying for it.
We can ban automobiles and bring back horses so we can employ stable hands. We can go back to gas street lights so we can employ people to light them. But why would we? To provide make work jobs? There is an issue with finding work for low/no skilled workers, but I don't think that a fear of greater automation and global competition is the effective solution.
In fact it turns out to be cheaper to build a self-levitating and self propelling vehicle than to build a really long and terribly complicated track. I think I shall call my new invention the aeroplane.
And why all cars were designed to work without requiring by far the biggest infrastructure investment on the planet: Roads...
You're right of course that there is a balance to be had but there are plenty of examples of large investments in infrastructure. We don't all operate small power plants in our back yard or pick up big batteries at the store after all. Personally I think we should be throwing money at self-driving cars and efficient ways of operating them. Get cars travelling at 100-120mph safely and the need for just about any other way to travel (bar long haul flights) drops considerably.
You were either managed by a retard or there's more to this story than you're aware of or sharing. Stack ranking came about because some people don't manage performance and this forces them to differentiate. In the vast majority of groups of (as a arbitrary line) 20 people or more there will be people performing at very different levels. If a team genuinely includes 900%+ great employees then the results for the team should speak for themselves because you should be achieving results 4x or better than an 'average' team.
Sure it has downsides, there's no system that doesn't. I'd rather work somewhere with stack ranking than where everyone is treated equally regardless of how poorly they perform.
If a UK citizen can be extradited to the US for breaking US law outside the US while physically never setting foot on US soil, why don't we see people getting extradited to all sorts of countries for breaking their laws while sitting in our homes in our own countries?
Because you have to commit a crime in the country which asks your goverment to extradite you. Thus you can't be extradited to face trial for selling nazi memorabilia in the UK even though it is illegal to do so in parts of Europe. However if you ran a web shop and were selling within a country where it was illegal you could be.
Extradition makes a lot of sense in many circumstances. Hiring a hitman within America over the phone from outside America doesn't stop what you've done being a crime commited in America (blackmail would be and so is hacking). You can argue that we should never extradite anyone or that we should try people for crimes commited in other jurisdictions, both of which come with consequences, but whether the person was physically stood on foriegn soil or not really isn't that important.
There was no hate or random in that post, though it did contain a healthy dose of explanation which sadly didn't seem to get through your eyes and into your brain.
Thanks for the response. The only communications I have seen regarding class actions suits tend to be based on including people by default (ie you can opt out if you take action). Personally I think that should be opt-in. That gives the lawyers more incentive to find people and to make them an offer they are interested in.
I know the existence of class action suits has benefits but there seem to be so many downsides that I have to hope there's another way. We don't have a real equivalent in the UK and it doesn't feel like we miss it (although it is generally much less risky for an individual to get involved in a lawsuit against a large business in Europe).
Surely it would make most sense for the lawyer bringing a class action suit to be responsible for contacting the people covered by it and then following their wishes. If a lawyer can only get agreement from 50% of members then if 25% refused the terms he is offered they should be excluded from the action (but still free to start their own) and the other 25% who weren't found and/or didn't respond should either also not be included or transfer their stake to the government. Finally, a settlement should have to be agreed by the class action members. Personally I'd only, and happily, accept donating from charity if the lawyers waived their fee or donated as well. There's no way most people would be happy if they knew a lawyer was getting rich by agreeing to give their settlement away!
One of my biggest issues with Google shopping is the number of prices that aren't current and inability to tell legitimate new sites from frauds. If they can improve that while charging a marginal fee then I would accept that as a worthwhile deal. Ultimately if Google charges enough that competitive shops stop listing then it'll shoot them in the foot. Also, just about everyone in Google's listings appears to allow affiliate sites and or buyers to use cashback sites. Google would be effectively skimming off some of their profit margin that they are happy to give to others.
Slashdot Mirror
If GoogleDrive was 3x less likely to cause death or serious injury than an average driver, but only 99% as good as a pro-driver, why is that an incorrect comparison? Knowing how good it is versus a tiny fraction of drivers is a distraction.
Your estimate about the timeframe to become affordable certainly doesn't help with credibility. Safe self-driving cars already exist there is no way we're not going to see affordable self-driving systems until after 2032 (your timeframe, not mine) given the cost savings in logistics, road safety improvements and benefit to elderly and disabled drivers. I'd be shocked if self-drive wasn't a standard feature on 'executive' cars before the end of the decade.
Facebook has a fundamental issue. It has allowed/encouraged users to build a large 'friend' list. This inevitably means that users get overwhelmed; so Facebook does some analysis and tries to cut the chaff and guess what you don't care about seeing. The problem is that with it's tight one size fits all friends model it has a good chance of hiding stuff I do want to see.
We were almost reaching the point where it was normal to announce big events like weddings etc on your wall. Now the people who may have done this are likely going to rely on other communication forms that they know will reach everyone.
That's basically what we get in the UK. A lot of our digital tv channels will have 2-4 different streams to choose from. Many will not have commentary and are effectively just a couple of cameras pointed at the match/game/event but it means you can see just about everything that happens.
It'll happen eventually and I'm pretty sure that the BBC doesn't police who uses iPlayer too carefully because they are happy to allow this behaviour in the meantime. They are taking the long term view that building up a large unpaying userbase will allow them to transfer them to paying service one day.
There may have been debate in the past but the law has never been remotely ambigious. You can be prosecuted for not having a license if someone can prove you were watching or recording live broadcast without a license. Obviously having a setup that would only be useful for that may not look good (a tv hooked up to an aerial) but that would likely just get them to check you more thoroughly.
There are 2 tvs in my house. The main one is used for iPlayer (not live), 4oD, ITVplayer, Sky player (not live), Netflix, DVDs and gaming and none of it requires a license. We've had inspectors call at our house twice in 6 years. Both times we explained our usages, they marked down that we didn't need a license without even asking to come in and we got left alone for ~4 years.
I got in a lot of fights as a kid and had a lot of issues. The more people tried to force me to do things the more I'd fight back. I got lucky and after leaving 3 schools ended up in a specialist one which had an ethos of non-confrontation and staff who were trained to reason with students. It was a school of about 30 kids that a normal school couldn't control and yet we left with decent grades and much more balanced lives. So although a beating may have done it for you, it might not work for many others.
We've been teaching it for decades and I'd bet the majority of people don't understand it. Either we need to find a better way to teach it or, if it isn't worth it, perhaps we should cut our losses and teach them something else that they are more likely to learn, remember and use.
5% of people with interest only mortgages in the UK don't know that means they won't own the house at the end. Algebra isn't what they needed, though arguably they wouldn't have listened to anything in school. I think maths is a great subject and I think it is vitally important to higher learning and reasoning but that doesn't mean it isn't worth considering if it is a waste to teach it in some circumstances.
It's a pointless argument though. The headline tax rate means nothing if the actual rate people are paying doesn't change. It's like saying that runners must carry a 50lb weight now but it won't change their speed because they did it 20 years ago and it didn't; while ignoring that 20 years ago no one actually did carry the weight and checks in place now mean they would have to.
I'm not anti-tax, I live in the UK and pay plenty thanks and that's fine. I just want to make sure that discussions about tax policy consider the reality of the situation.
We don't give the cops them in the UK and a lot of Europe and given our death rate I think well keep it that way thanks. The truth is that many Reps are right. You can have guns and less murder, but you'll need to work out why Americans are so keen to kill each other and deal with that first? If you can't work that out then less guns is a pretty good proxy.
Everyone isn't in denial. I think on some level most people understand what is going on but are willing to ignore it for more immediate benefit. The Europeans are still producing as much carbon as the Chinese so we can hardly say it's China's fault especially when America still continues to produce far more carbon (and equivalents) than both the Chinese and Europeans per head.
The Western world, mainly America, don't want to commit to polluting less than the Asians because they are worried that it will make them less competitive and "isn't fair". We built up our status as the first world on the back of massive polution, but don't want China/India etc to be able to do the same: That isn't fair and it's hardly surprising that the Asians don't think so.
The western world should pay back the 'polluting debt' we owe by giving money to countries that didn't pollute as much in the past. If we did that we could set fair and equal pollution limits on a global level. It won't happen because no one will make it to power in America (and other places) by suggesting they give trillions to other countries and increase taxes on high emission sources to force them down.
Apparently not; unless you really believe the point of everything is the point that you define.
One of the dumbest solutions to the problem I have ever heard. If you make it illegal for iTunes to not sell something they sell in the US in Australia then if they can't license it for Aus they'll just have to remove it for everyone; sounds cunning. Except, a company that doesn't sell in Australia at all can't be sued, and certainly couldn't be pursued, for not allowing Australians to use their site. Netflix would shut up the Aus office and a new company AusFlix founded by them would service the Aus market.
Now if they said that you couldn't be prosecuted for pirating something that can't be bought within Australia after release, or x months from release, it would solve the issue. Can't buy a tv show? No problem, you can download it for free from the hundreds of services that would pop up to provide it.
I'm not sure if you're a troll or ignorant so I'll keep it brief. You carry a gun on the street in the UK and you will go to prison. You carry an offensive weapon and use it, even in self-defence and you will almost certainly go to prison for having it regardless.
No he used British people's response to a situation to illustrate that they perceive many French people are willing to admit openly to disliking arabs. How you expressed your nonsense point is even more dissapointing; but I suppose congratulations are in order, there's a dilbert about you
My workplace has main them the default work phones, a couple of my friends have them and my mum came home with one the other day. I use it quite a bit, as I have one provided by work, and have been impressed. That said, I still have a Android personal mobile and wouldn't exchange it because I like being able to replace almost any functionality, especially things like the launcher, which isn't supported on other smartphone OS.
100 lives and an extra $90 billion in cost is $0.9 billion a life. Personally I think that is still excessive but considerably less than you said.
Avoiding any loss of life isn't always practical. At the same time ignoring loss of life isn't the correct solution. We could probably have built the dam cheaper with more deaths, would $2 billion in savings be worth another 100 lives? We could also have avoided a lot of the deaths for a comparatively low cost, if we could have saved 50 lives for the equivalent of $100,000 each wouldn't it be worth it? The 100 figure also ignores the workers who likely died due to carbon monoxide (around 50).
The Burj Khalifa is a pretty impressive building and has one recorded death (there were probably two) but this doesn't cover suicide, heat exhaustion etc (equivalent to carbon monoxide poisoning at the damn I suppose) so it shows that big projects can get done without killing dozens of people.
If the ability to visit a store is valuable then those stores need to monetize it if they are going to compete freely with companies that don't offer physical locations. Bring in memberships like Costco or minimum spends. It might not work, because people might refuse to shop somewhere that does that, but that's life.
I bank with an online bank, I have spoken to a person perhaps 3 times in 6 years and that's fine for me. I don't want to subsidise a branch network that I don't need (I do want and am willing to pay for good phone support when I, rarely, need it). There are loads of banks to choose from, and if you want good local in person service you should be paying for it.
We can ban automobiles and bring back horses so we can employ stable hands. We can go back to gas street lights so we can employ people to light them. But why would we? To provide make work jobs? There is an issue with finding work for low/no skilled workers, but I don't think that a fear of greater automation and global competition is the effective solution.
Strawman troll is troll.
You were either managed by a retard or there's more to this story than you're aware of or sharing. Stack ranking came about because some people don't manage performance and this forces them to differentiate. In the vast majority of groups of (as a arbitrary line) 20 people or more there will be people performing at very different levels. If a team genuinely includes 900%+ great employees then the results for the team should speak for themselves because you should be achieving results 4x or better than an 'average' team.
Sure it has downsides, there's no system that doesn't. I'd rather work somewhere with stack ranking than where everyone is treated equally regardless of how poorly they perform.
Because you have to commit a crime in the country which asks your goverment to extradite you. Thus you can't be extradited to face trial for selling nazi memorabilia in the UK even though it is illegal to do so in parts of Europe. However if you ran a web shop and were selling within a country where it was illegal you could be.
Extradition makes a lot of sense in many circumstances. Hiring a hitman within America over the phone from outside America doesn't stop what you've done being a crime commited in America (blackmail would be and so is hacking). You can argue that we should never extradite anyone or that we should try people for crimes commited in other jurisdictions, both of which come with consequences, but whether the person was physically stood on foriegn soil or not really isn't that important.
There was no hate or random in that post, though it did contain a healthy dose of explanation which sadly didn't seem to get through your eyes and into your brain.
Thanks for the response. The only communications I have seen regarding class actions suits tend to be based on including people by default (ie you can opt out if you take action). Personally I think that should be opt-in. That gives the lawyers more incentive to find people and to make them an offer they are interested in.
I know the existence of class action suits has benefits but there seem to be so many downsides that I have to hope there's another way. We don't have a real equivalent in the UK and it doesn't feel like we miss it (although it is generally much less risky for an individual to get involved in a lawsuit against a large business in Europe).
Surely it would make most sense for the lawyer bringing a class action suit to be responsible for contacting the people covered by it and then following their wishes. If a lawyer can only get agreement from 50% of members then if 25% refused the terms he is offered they should be excluded from the action (but still free to start their own) and the other 25% who weren't found and/or didn't respond should either also not be included or transfer their stake to the government. Finally, a settlement should have to be agreed by the class action members. Personally I'd only, and happily, accept donating from charity if the lawyers waived their fee or donated as well. There's no way most people would be happy if they knew a lawyer was getting rich by agreeing to give their settlement away!
One of my biggest issues with Google shopping is the number of prices that aren't current and inability to tell legitimate new sites from frauds. If they can improve that while charging a marginal fee then I would accept that as a worthwhile deal. Ultimately if Google charges enough that competitive shops stop listing then it'll shoot them in the foot. Also, just about everyone in Google's listings appears to allow affiliate sites and or buyers to use cashback sites. Google would be effectively skimming off some of their profit margin that they are happy to give to others.