And that's not 11,000 until an accident, that's 11,000 miles until the car acted in a way the driver wasn't comfortable with, that doesn't mean the car would have had an accident but that the driver wasn't going to wait and find out.
There is not true data about how many crashes driverless cars have because they are never really driverless yet, they're not good enough, but they could get good enough in a few years.
But so far, they can't handle a parking lot or a divider in the road or heavy rain. People can do that a billion times better than a computer can.
I bet these vehicles couldn't handle London with it's constantly changing roads due to road and building works.
A Waymo vehicle can go 11000 miles on average before human intervention is needed, I bet this would be more like a few hundred miles in London. They did manage to double that distance in the past year, but can they do that again or are there diminishing returns and how much is this figure skewed by the fact that they don't even try in some weather conditions and in some harder locations.
The fact that a human can take over when the car gives up shows that these vehicles are not better at driving than a professional sober alert human and to be honest, that is the standard they should be aiming for because it's mostly not professional sober alert calm people that crash vehicles, it drunk / tired / drugged / raging / texting people that crash vehicles and if I'm in a vehicle I expect it to be at least as safe as if driven by a human who is in a fit condition to drive. I expect they'll get there eventually but it'll probably take legal pressure to make sure they keep improving and no doubt there will be some scandals along the way (Uber and Tesla are already responsible for deaths) involving cost-cutting, bad management etc.
Seriously, this just seems like an unnecessary cost and I wouldn't trust Amazon to pick a representative basket of goods any more than I trust the gov't or other fiscal institutes.
I wish we could run 2+ OSes at the same time, it should be possible since many CPUs have hardware level virtualisation but of course there is also the GPU etc to consider. I've had dual boot before but always found the 2nd OS just sat there rotting because switching between OSes takes too long and requires closing everything.
I prefer BST, it gets dark far too early in winter, if farmers want to get up early then fine, they can and will, farmers have far more choice than your average worker. In British winter (spring) the sun wakes me up too early and it's still dark before I even set off home.
So how did you find out about it? Were you contacted by the survey people or did you find out via some third party. Because if third parties were the main means by which people found out about the survey then the survey us potentially useless. If this third party can figure a way of notifying lots of people they think will vote in a particular direction then that obviously would skew the result.
The problem is if 10% of the public don't know what you just stated then it is irrelevant and the car should not have a driver assist feature called auto pilot. The term Auto is strongly associated with the word automatic and many people clearly don't understand that Tesla's auto-pilot is not fully automatic and this is getting people killed.
Tesla should not use terms that will mislead anyone even if that anyone is only 5% of users because that would still be endangering a lot of people.
Nah, I don't think they know how to moralize considering they missed all of the points you made about corporations being arseholes, funny how you got modded as troll after they clearly trolled you, par for the course on slashdot.
"GPUs are on firesale to the point where it's going to hurt Nvidia's stock price."
Well I hope so, My GTX970 cost £230, now a 2070 costs double that and the 2080ti's are stupidly expensive, I'd like to see the prices come back down to sane levels. The memory cartel is in part to blame.
" We aren't operating at that level." Except we are, this statement seems to be in denial of the fact that we are a mass of atoms. Some scientists would say that we aren't really making decisions we are simply conscious of the decisions being made by are brains and we are in effect simply watching those decisions which feel like us because that's how consciousness works. And there was a study IIRC that showed our brains indeed have already made the decision we think we are making before we are actually conscious of the outcome of the decision. Summary: you conscious merely watches the machine ticking.
I'm not saying I fully 'believe' this argument, I'm not one for having steadfast beliefs, I leave that to devote religious people but these are simply my understanding of ideas put forwards by scientists based upon their experiments.
You seem to be saying that you have free will because you can behave unpredictably or on gut instinct but either way you are still a mass of quarks and electrons all of which are governed by the laws of physics, it is that which is predictable. The choices you make are the choices of a machine moving according to the laws of physics there is only one course - that laid down by the laws of physics, it is fate, you would never have made any other choice. in the future you will only ever have one choice unless you have a spirit external to the machine which can change the course of the machine.
I'm not religious but how can there be free will under atheism? After all if everything runs like clockwork and consciousness is an emergent property of matter which is governed but a strict set of physics rules then surely there is no free will - clocks can't choose when they tick or which way the hand goes./devils advocate.
News has always been adjusted to suit the views of the newspaper owners, this is nothing new. The vast majority of what most papers print is true, the system of lies wouldn't work otherwise, the lies have to be used sparingly but they can be big lies. But yes, my suspicion is that the flat-earthers are trolling to increase their Patreon donations, it boggles the mind that anyone can believe the earth is flat after decades of photos of the earth and the other planets along with all of the other irrefutable evidence.
Nothing will change because governments like the majority of people to be unquestioning whether it's Trump saying we need a wall or people saying the earth is flat or politicians saying the latest undemocratic international treaty written by corporations is good for people (when's the last time you heard politicians discussing a treaty to harmonize corporation taxes?).
Which is why USA is pretty much an idiocracy at this point in time. 1 supreme idiot is confidently in charge, no critical thinking skills required, just sound bites.
"as we are far from being clear on what is and what isn't good."
That is not the case here though is it, vaccinations save countless millions of lives and the only place where we are far from being clear is whether there is a small downside. No-one is asking for an algorithm that censors, we're asking for an algorithm that simply takes current scientific consensus in to account and highlights when articles are quackery and misleading trash.
Or to put it another way, it seems that the same mistakes happen over and over and over again. What's stopping universities from determining what the top ten most common mistakes made are and tackling those through their education?
Normally we call people who make the same mistakes repeatedly idiots.
"the other half" really don't understand what censorship is, they seem to think that any recommendation algorithm that doesn't feed them constant unadulterated shit is censorship. no, it's not, fact checking and the automation of fact checking is not censorship, it's a good idea. Whether or not that is possible to do well is debatable.
If you want to stick it to the man then why on earth would you have a Facebook account? No doubt all these idiots are posting from windows 10 too.
If Facebook are going to make news and groups recommendations then they shouldn't be recommending bad information that can get your children killed, that's not censorship, it's common sense.
This is far too regular occurrence and it looks like ar too large a percentage of scientific studies are flawed and many are so badly flawed that their conclusions are completely wrong and sometimes the complete opposite conclusion is true.
So why aren't universities teaching people how to do science properly and why are scientific papers constantly missing all of the bad papers they are supposed to be reviewing?
The system looks very broken to me and I do not agree with " It's science working as it should," it's a mess that literally affects whether people live or die.
For every kilo of CO2 you can mitigate by building a nuclear power station you can mitigate a lot more by putting renewables in place.
Both renewables and nuclear are inflexible, if you only run nuclear 50% of the time then the power it produces costs nearly twice as much. So nuclear and renewables are in no way complimentary, it's one or the other, both need storage to take excess and supply it during higher demand periods. Storage has every reason to get cheaper as time goes on. Nuclear power clearly isn't getting any cheaper. Nuclear reprocessing is extremely expensive and that's a necessity in the future as nuclear fuel would dwindle very fast if the world took up nuclear large scale. Ocean uranium is not a viable option, it's both more expensive and also very resource hungry.
Slashdot Mirror
No, like I said, over 11,000 miles on average, nothing to do with a pre-set course.
https://www.ft.com/content/7c8...
https://www.engadget.com/2019/...
And that's not 11,000 until an accident, that's 11,000 miles until the car acted in a way the driver wasn't comfortable with, that doesn't mean the car would have had an accident but that the driver wasn't going to wait and find out.
There is not true data about how many crashes driverless cars have because they are never really driverless yet, they're not good enough, but they could get good enough in a few years.
But so far, they can't handle a parking lot or a divider in the road or heavy rain. People can do that a billion times better than a computer can.
I bet these vehicles couldn't handle London with it's constantly changing roads due to road and building works.
A Waymo vehicle can go 11000 miles on average before human intervention is needed, I bet this would be more like a few hundred miles in London. They did manage to double that distance in the past year, but can they do that again or are there diminishing returns and how much is this figure skewed by the fact that they don't even try in some weather conditions and in some harder locations.
The fact that a human can take over when the car gives up shows that these vehicles are not better at driving than a professional sober alert human and to be honest, that is the standard they should be aiming for because it's mostly not professional sober alert calm people that crash vehicles, it drunk / tired / drugged / raging / texting people that crash vehicles and if I'm in a vehicle I expect it to be at least as safe as if driven by a human who is in a fit condition to drive. I expect they'll get there eventually but it'll probably take legal pressure to make sure they keep improving and no doubt there will be some scandals along the way (Uber and Tesla are already responsible for deaths) involving cost-cutting, bad management etc.
Seriously, this just seems like an unnecessary cost and I wouldn't trust Amazon to pick a representative basket of goods any more than I trust the gov't or other fiscal institutes.
I wish we could run 2+ OSes at the same time, it should be possible since many CPUs have hardware level virtualisation but of course there is also the GPU etc to consider. I've had dual boot before but always found the 2nd OS just sat there rotting because switching between OSes takes too long and requires closing everything.
I prefer BST, it gets dark far too early in winter, if farmers want to get up early then fine, they can and will, farmers have far more choice than your average worker. In British winter (spring) the sun wakes me up too early and it's still dark before I even set off home.
So how did you find out about it? Were you contacted by the survey people or did you find out via some third party. Because if third parties were the main means by which people found out about the survey then the survey us potentially useless. If this third party can figure a way of notifying lots of people they think will vote in a particular direction then that obviously would skew the result.
The problem is if 10% of the public don't know what you just stated then it is irrelevant and the car should not have a driver assist feature called auto pilot. The term Auto is strongly associated with the word automatic and many people clearly don't understand that Tesla's auto-pilot is not fully automatic and this is getting people killed.
Tesla should not use terms that will mislead anyone even if that anyone is only 5% of users because that would still be endangering a lot of people.
Nah, I don't think they know how to moralize considering they missed all of the points you made about corporations being arseholes, funny how you got modded as troll after they clearly trolled you, par for the course on slashdot.
"GPUs are on firesale to the point where it's going to hurt Nvidia's stock price."
Well I hope so, My GTX970 cost £230, now a 2070 costs double that and the 2080ti's are stupidly expensive, I'd like to see the prices come back down to sane levels. The memory cartel is in part to blame.
You are your brain. I am my consciousness.
" We aren't operating at that level."
Except we are, this statement seems to be in denial of the fact that we are a mass of atoms. Some scientists would say that we aren't really making decisions we are simply conscious of the decisions being made by are brains and we are in effect simply watching those decisions which feel like us because that's how consciousness works. And there was a study IIRC that showed our brains indeed have already made the decision we think we are making before we are actually conscious of the outcome of the decision. Summary: you conscious merely watches the machine ticking.
I'm not saying I fully 'believe' this argument, I'm not one for having steadfast beliefs, I leave that to devote religious people but these are simply my understanding of ideas put forwards by scientists based upon their experiments.
You seem to be saying that you have free will because you can behave unpredictably or on gut instinct but either way you are still a mass of quarks and electrons all of which are governed by the laws of physics, it is that which is predictable. The choices you make are the choices of a machine moving according to the laws of physics there is only one course - that laid down by the laws of physics, it is fate, you would never have made any other choice. in the future you will only ever have one choice unless you have a spirit external to the machine which can change the course of the machine.
Can god even have free will?
I'm not religious but how can there be free will under atheism? After all if everything runs like clockwork and consciousness is an emergent property of matter which is governed but a strict set of physics rules then surely there is no free will - clocks can't choose when they tick or which way the hand goes. /devils advocate.
News has always been adjusted to suit the views of the newspaper owners, this is nothing new. The vast majority of what most papers print is true, the system of lies wouldn't work otherwise, the lies have to be used sparingly but they can be big lies. But yes, my suspicion is that the flat-earthers are trolling to increase their Patreon donations, it boggles the mind that anyone can believe the earth is flat after decades of photos of the earth and the other planets along with all of the other irrefutable evidence.
Nothing will change because governments like the majority of people to be unquestioning whether it's Trump saying we need a wall or people saying the earth is flat or politicians saying the latest undemocratic international treaty written by corporations is good for people (when's the last time you heard politicians discussing a treaty to harmonize corporation taxes?).
Which is why USA is pretty much an idiocracy at this point in time. 1 supreme idiot is confidently in charge, no critical thinking skills required, just sound bites.
"as we are far from being clear on what is and what isn't good."
That is not the case here though is it, vaccinations save countless millions of lives and the only place where we are far from being clear is whether there is a small downside. No-one is asking for an algorithm that censors, we're asking for an algorithm that simply takes current scientific consensus in to account and highlights when articles are quackery and misleading trash.
Or to put it another way, it seems that the same mistakes happen over and over and over again. What's stopping universities from determining what the top ten most common mistakes made are and tackling those through their education?
Normally we call people who make the same mistakes repeatedly idiots.
I think the thing you're missing is there are correct methods and those methods aren't always being followed.
"the other half" really don't understand what censorship is, they seem to think that any recommendation algorithm that doesn't feed them constant unadulterated shit is censorship. no, it's not, fact checking and the automation of fact checking is not censorship, it's a good idea. Whether or not that is possible to do well is debatable.
If you want to stick it to the man then why on earth would you have a Facebook account? No doubt all these idiots are posting from windows 10 too.
No, it it is not an act of censorship and so you're advocating the continuing promotion of fake news and fallacious articles and groups because?
That has real harm - people are dying because of the lack of vaccinations.
You think fake news should be promoted because?
Except that is only one group and it doesn't count all of the millions of people that Facebook recommends fake or extremely biased news stories to.
And, what censorship? Tweaking a news or group recommendation algorithm is in no way censorship, so why are you railing against censorship?
Straw man.
If Facebook are going to make news and groups recommendations then they shouldn't be recommending bad information that can get your children killed, that's not censorship, it's common sense.
This is far too regular occurrence and it looks like ar too large a percentage of scientific studies are flawed and many are so badly flawed that their conclusions are completely wrong and sometimes the complete opposite conclusion is true.
So why aren't universities teaching people how to do science properly and why are scientific papers constantly missing all of the bad papers they are supposed to be reviewing?
The system looks very broken to me and I do not agree with " It's science working as it should," it's a mess that literally affects whether people live or die.
For every kilo of CO2 you can mitigate by building a nuclear power station you can mitigate a lot more by putting renewables in place.
Both renewables and nuclear are inflexible, if you only run nuclear 50% of the time then the power it produces costs nearly twice as much. So nuclear and renewables are in no way complimentary, it's one or the other, both need storage to take excess and supply it during higher demand periods. Storage has every reason to get cheaper as time goes on. Nuclear power clearly isn't getting any cheaper. Nuclear reprocessing is extremely expensive and that's a necessity in the future as nuclear fuel would dwindle very fast if the world took up nuclear large scale. Ocean uranium is not a viable option, it's both more expensive and also very resource hungry.