And yet, go back in the time machine and you will indeed see many women interested and working in tech... The first computer operators were very often women, because it wasn't considered a high status job.
Sure, if by "many" you mean "a few thousand".
I see people making this argument all the time, and it seems so silly. The reason you saw mostly women "computer operators" in the early days is because there were very few such jobs, and they weren't very glamorous. Men worked on the hardware and the research needed to improve it; a few thousand talented women floated to the top and took the "software" jobs which men didn't want. That doesn't mean that the pool of women who were interested in tech was larger back then; on the contrary it was likely much smaller. They just happened to have an entire field left to them because men were more interested in other aspects of the emerging technology.
This is a large scale lifetime Italian study, finding statistically significant increase of a specific and uncommon cancer
Not really. This appears to be a large scale farce which subdivides a large population into 24 subgroups and then tries to pretend that the result is still statistically significant, despite it being pretty much what you would expect from chance alone.
The wavelength of ionizising radiation (the type that can cause cancer) is well known. Cellphone towers don't emit it.
Yes, any layman with an interest in physics knows that. However that does not necessarily exclude the possibility of some other type of unknown mechanism, no matter how slight that possibility might be. The lack of a known mechanism is not enough; it's just an appeal to ignorance.
If a well designed rigerous study found a link between cell tower radiation and specific type(s) of cancer, and followup studies successfully replicated those results, I would be quite willing to accept that cell towers probably are causing cancer, even if we have no idea how. The problem has been that all of these studies are crap, and that real world data shows no link either. That, combined with the lack of a plausible mechanism, leads me to conclude that there's almost certainly no danger. I'm always willing to be proven wrong, but this study definitely isn't the way to do it.
Given that they're engaging in P hacking, you could put the rats 10,000 miles away from the antenna and probably get similar results. Or just get rid of the antennas entirely. Either way, if you test for enough things you're going to get at least one "significant" result.
I just had a look at their data and it's all over the place. There's no dose response curve at all. Some types of cancers occurred more often at the lowest dose than at the highest dose.
It looks almost like P hacking to me. But I've only had a brief glance at it, and I'm not a scientician. Would love to hear from someone who does actual scientific research for a living.
Not insanity by any means. It doesn't mean that a the driver is always at fault -- that would be insane -- but rather that since the driver is in control of a vehicle that will easily kill a pedestrian, the driver is expected to yield by default.
No. Right of way means exactly what it says; you have the right to take a given way. In your scenario the pedestrian has the right to walk out onto a major highway. If they have that right, then anyone who hits them is automatically at fault.
I actually think the law stated above is more problematic as it seems to allow a driver to willingly kill a pedestrian with the excuse that they were crossing outside of the crosswalk.
Again, no. There are other laws to deal with that; specifically murder laws. The fact that someone is breaking the law does not automatically give you the right to commit murder.
The original meaning of "right of way" applied to passage through owned property. Eg. if I have a large farm, some people may have the right to pass through a given section of it. If someone who doesn't have the right-of-way on my property decides to pass through it anyway, that wouldn't give me the right to murder them on sight.
Back in the day when I learned to drive the rule was that pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way -- even if they're crossing in the middle of the road.
Yeah, lots of people "teach" that, but it's pure insanity. By that reasoning if some maniac jumps out onto a major highway right in front of your car while you're doing 100 km/h, it's your fault. If any country actually has such laws it's a place run by lunatics.
The lesson for the rest of us is that Uber's self driving technology is not ready for prime time, for whatever reason(s).
I dunno... I mean even if we assume that a human driver could have avoided this particular accident, that doesn't mean the technology isn't still an improvement over human drivers in other cases. You'd need a lot more data to reach that conclusion. It could very well be that lives saved in other, more common types of preventable accidents massively outweigh the lives lost in these types of abnormal occurrences.
You have to perfect the technology first in controlled conditions
Right, because that's totally a doable thing. Sorry, guys, we're not going to the moon. Gotta get these rocket thingies 100% safe first in controlled conditions.
On the contrary, almost any human driver would have spotted that women from far away. Don't be fooled by the artificially darkened video, as others have noted in reality the lighting conditions on that road are pretty good, and she was also not jumping on the road but crossing it slowly and under perfect weather conditions.
Oh, sure. "Some guy said it's well lit" is all the evidence I need in order to ignore video footage and firmly believe that a human driver could have avoided the accident. Gossip is the best type of evidence!
There are a number of problems with that reasoning:
1. You can't really draw statistical conclusions from a one off occurrence. The fact that one pedestrian was killed after 10 million miles does not mean that driverless cars kill 1 per 10 million miles. It could be 0.01 per 10 million, or it could be 10 per 10 million. We won't really know until we have a larger sample size.
2. It doesn't account for types of miles. AFAIK the majority of testing for driverless cars has occurred in city settings, while the majority of miles driven by humans are on highways. One of those environments is far more risky than the other.
3. It only looks at pedestrians and not at collisions as a whole. If the number of fatal crashes as a whole is significantly lower then driverless cars may still be safer, even if they do turn out to cause more pedestrian deaths.
Still, at least you're actually talking about the numbers, which is a big improvement over the OP. I'm fully willing to accept that driverless cars could currently be less safe than human drivers, but I'm not going to accept that conclusion based on the emotional ravings of some lunatic. Show me the numbers!
Yeah, let's go to war with Germany, Italy, and Japan! Because they're...doing stuff in Europe and Asia, which is sovereign territory of the United States!
Wow. We thought you were here to discuss the topic.
I'm here to discuss the topic with anyone who is interested in having a serious discussion. I'm not here to discuss the topic with a jackass who is predisposed to demonizing driverless cars and openly admits that he doesn't care about safety statistics.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone majored in patriarchy theory at college.
And yet, go back in the time machine and you will indeed see many women interested and working in tech ... The first computer operators were very often women, because it wasn't considered a high status job.
Sure, if by "many" you mean "a few thousand".
I see people making this argument all the time, and it seems so silly. The reason you saw mostly women "computer operators" in the early days is because there were very few such jobs, and they weren't very glamorous. Men worked on the hardware and the research needed to improve it; a few thousand talented women floated to the top and took the "software" jobs which men didn't want. That doesn't mean that the pool of women who were interested in tech was larger back then; on the contrary it was likely much smaller. They just happened to have an entire field left to them because men were more interested in other aspects of the emerging technology.
This is a large scale lifetime Italian study, finding statistically significant increase of a specific and uncommon cancer
Not really. This appears to be a large scale farce which subdivides a large population into 24 subgroups and then tries to pretend that the result is still statistically significant, despite it being pretty much what you would expect from chance alone.
The wavelength of ionizising radiation (the type that can cause cancer) is well known. Cellphone towers don't emit it.
Yes, any layman with an interest in physics knows that. However that does not necessarily exclude the possibility of some other type of unknown mechanism, no matter how slight that possibility might be. The lack of a known mechanism is not enough; it's just an appeal to ignorance.
If a well designed rigerous study found a link between cell tower radiation and specific type(s) of cancer, and followup studies successfully replicated those results, I would be quite willing to accept that cell towers probably are causing cancer, even if we have no idea how. The problem has been that all of these studies are crap, and that real world data shows no link either. That, combined with the lack of a plausible mechanism, leads me to conclude that there's almost certainly no danger. I'm always willing to be proven wrong, but this study definitely isn't the way to do it.
Given that they're engaging in P hacking, you could put the rats 10,000 miles away from the antenna and probably get similar results. Or just get rid of the antennas entirely. Either way, if you test for enough things you're going to get at least one "significant" result.
Xkcd explains:
https://xkcd.com/882/
Yes there should.
I just had a look at their data and it's all over the place. There's no dose response curve at all. Some types of cancers occurred more often at the lowest dose than at the highest dose.
It looks almost like P hacking to me. But I've only had a brief glance at it, and I'm not a scientician. Would love to hear from someone who does actual scientific research for a living.
Not insanity by any means. It doesn't mean that a the driver is always at fault -- that would be insane -- but rather that since the driver is in control of a vehicle that will easily kill a pedestrian, the driver is expected to yield by default.
No. Right of way means exactly what it says; you have the right to take a given way. In your scenario the pedestrian has the right to walk out onto a major highway. If they have that right, then anyone who hits them is automatically at fault.
I actually think the law stated above is more problematic as it seems to allow a driver to willingly kill a pedestrian with the excuse that they were crossing outside of the crosswalk.
Again, no. There are other laws to deal with that; specifically murder laws. The fact that someone is breaking the law does not automatically give you the right to commit murder.
The original meaning of "right of way" applied to passage through owned property. Eg. if I have a large farm, some people may have the right to pass through a given section of it. If someone who doesn't have the right-of-way on my property decides to pass through it anyway, that wouldn't give me the right to murder them on sight.
Back in the day when I learned to drive the rule was that pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way -- even if they're crossing in the middle of the road.
Yeah, lots of people "teach" that, but it's pure insanity. By that reasoning if some maniac jumps out onto a major highway right in front of your car while you're doing 100 km/h, it's your fault. If any country actually has such laws it's a place run by lunatics.
The lesson for the rest of us is that Uber's self driving technology is not ready for prime time, for whatever reason(s).
I dunno ... I mean even if we assume that a human driver could have avoided this particular accident, that doesn't mean the technology isn't still an improvement over human drivers in other cases. You'd need a lot more data to reach that conclusion. It could very well be that lives saved in other, more common types of preventable accidents massively outweigh the lives lost in these types of abnormal occurrences.
To prove that we're not heartless we have posthumously given her a Darwin Award. That ought to set your mind at ease.
You have to perfect the technology first in controlled conditions
Right, because that's totally a doable thing. Sorry, guys, we're not going to the moon. Gotta get these rocket thingies 100% safe first in controlled conditions.
On the contrary, almost any human driver would have spotted that women from far away. Don't be fooled by the artificially darkened video, as others have noted in reality the lighting conditions on that road are pretty good, and she was also not jumping on the road but crossing it slowly and under perfect weather conditions.
Oh, sure. "Some guy said it's well lit" is all the evidence I need in order to ignore video footage and firmly believe that a human driver could have avoided the accident. Gossip is the best type of evidence!
There are a number of problems with that reasoning:
1. You can't really draw statistical conclusions from a one off occurrence. The fact that one pedestrian was killed after 10 million miles does not mean that driverless cars kill 1 per 10 million miles. It could be 0.01 per 10 million, or it could be 10 per 10 million. We won't really know until we have a larger sample size.
2. It doesn't account for types of miles. AFAIK the majority of testing for driverless cars has occurred in city settings, while the majority of miles driven by humans are on highways. One of those environments is far more risky than the other.
3. It only looks at pedestrians and not at collisions as a whole. If the number of fatal crashes as a whole is significantly lower then driverless cars may still be safer, even if they do turn out to cause more pedestrian deaths.
Still, at least you're actually talking about the numbers, which is a big improvement over the OP. I'm fully willing to accept that driverless cars could currently be less safe than human drivers, but I'm not going to accept that conclusion based on the emotional ravings of some lunatic. Show me the numbers!
Jesus fucking Christ people. Free speech only keeps the government from impeding your speech.
Jesus fucking Christ retard. Censorship doesn't just refer to government action.
Problem is, Facebook tracks you regardless of whether you use their services.
Yeah, let's go to war with Germany, Italy, and Japan! Because they're...doing stuff in Europe and Asia, which is sovereign territory of the United States!
This was not simple harvesting of public data, this was hacking of personal accounts via malware in an app.
Why comment when you're obviously clueless? It was a standard app using the Facebook API. If this was malware then so is every other app on Facebook.
Stupid analogy. This is more like willingly participating in a porn shoot, and then being outraged that a specific person got a copy of the video.
*a company which was hoping to sell data to Trump used Facebook's API, but Trump never bought the data
I deleted Facebook and I don't even know what an Instagram is.
Thanks, I stand corrected; the rallying cry of these particular idiots isn't "no war for pineapples" but rather "no war for bananas".
But you know that isn't the same.
Of course not. Obama was a democrat. That makes it like 100% different.
You think the US got involved in Guatamala because of fruit?
That's adorable. I can almost understand that "no blood for oil" retards, but you "no blood for pineapples" guys are a special bunch.
Wow. We thought you were here to discuss the topic.
I'm here to discuss the topic with anyone who is interested in having a serious discussion. I'm not here to discuss the topic with a jackass who is predisposed to demonizing driverless cars and openly admits that he doesn't care about safety statistics.
Human drivers cover more miles in a single day than SDCs have covered in their entire history.
So, in other words, driverless cars are 15 times safer?