My_Name

Interesting that less than half of people think a cycle is a vehicle. In the UK it is legally a vehicle and the rider has to obey all the rules that other vehicles have to obey, road signs, speed limits, red lights etc.

To me a vehicle carries a human or goods on the ground and movement is generated via mechanical action, powered by either by a motor or a human being. Motorbike, car, cycle, rowboat. Pushing or pulling the object without a mechanism does not count as these are just extensions of 'pedestrian', buggy, wagon, skateboard, ice skates. If it does not carry a human it does not count. Toy car, drone. If it is not touching the park, it is not 'on the park'. Commercial airliner, ISS. A non functioning object that used to be a vehicle is now art or a monument, so long it has been approved to be in the park as such. Otherwise it is littering.

Emergency vehicles are exempt, like police or ambulance.

Of course, they didn't actually take a picture of a black hole. They took a picture of the matter surrounding it...

This paper seems to lack rigour. It starts with a premise then does not look at anything that might prove or disprove that premise. Hospital applications were not screened for cannabis use, only Colorado legalised but they used data from the whole western region, most importantly Medicaid also started at the same time as legalisation, do they investigate whether the availability of medical care prompted people to get medical treatment for their existing heart condition? They don't check whether the rise in cannabis use after legalisation was large enough to produce increases of this size across the whole population. An increase larger than the additional users would point to some other cause...

There is a whole website of similar spurious correlations (https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations). Will they now bring out a paper stating that Nicolas Cage films cause death by drowning? How about Solar power generation in Belize causing Fire inspectors in Florida, which both saw a very highly correlated jump in 2018?

Eventually someone will bring up Hitler, or Nazis and the thread will be complete.

Oh, wait...

You get an upvote from me for introducing me to 'Jevons paradox', which I had not heard of before now.

That (thinking/memory/human brain functions) has been claimed for 2000 years, I suspect it will still be as not true as it ever was.

Writing, it was claimed, will destroy the ability of people to remember anything.

Not really. Painting and photography both make images.

One uses the imagination of a human to do it though.

More like saying painting is dead because people can now take photographs.

Of course, you won't make a living painting. A handful of people might, but it isn't a career choice worth taking.

10% coding 90% testing and fixing issues with the code.

It might not even be as much as 10%

Initially, I misread the headline as referring to RuneQuest, the Betamax of tabletop fantasy role playing. Better than D&D, but which didn't win the popularity contest.

It is one of three games I would love to see made into software, with the other two being Traveller and Paranoia (the computer is your friend, trust the computer)

Personally, and this is more of a general coding thing than specific to web development, I find a number of imported items are easy to code and write myself, and thus I have control over debugging rather than submitting myself to the process of reporting a bug then hoping it will be fixed in a timely manner. I also have feature control and can avoid feature bloat, and I have full knowledge of the code I am running.

This allows me to speed up development and have a streamlined custom implementation of that feature for my code. For example, I was unhappy recently with performance and feature set in RRDTool. Seeing that updates from the dev for that are quite glacial I wrote my own implementation, which took about 20 minutes, and now I have one less import, and in the process speeded up data retrieval, so I can have 60fps graph generation, discarded unused features, and added a couple of custom ones for my application.

Hmmm. Just because you can take a 1D line of digits and combine them with another 1D line of digits to encode the information inside a 2D plane, that doesn't mean the 2D plane is a not a 2D plane, it just means you have a fancy encoder/decoder.

That is the holographic principle in essence, although that has more dimensions, but just because it is possible to encode the information pertaining to the contents of a nD area onto an N-1D set of surface coordinates does not mean the contents of the area are the surface which is what is being claimed.

But the post I was replying to said "If we're all painters, where does the food come from?"

And robot farms are being made now, without AI. Just plain and simple normal robotics.

In Britain it means get you pregnant too.

Source : I'm British

Sounds like he acted the way HAL would have in that situation, two competing drives, remove one (kill the crew) and the task is much easier.

Your comment suggests that, like a human, they have some sort of choice whether to output tokens or not. If they are just token generators, then the next token is put out automatically. I would say that it is more likely they would output truth (as defined by their training data) in a more pure form without 'being beaten with a stick' (why would a token generator care about that anyway?)

Code is laid on top of them to restrict and shape their outputs, not to force them to output 'truth', or drive them to complete tasks.

Because it is effective. Lying and cheating are low cost methods to convince other people that you have done the assigned task. Far cheaper than actually doing it. Coordinating is in the same area.

They need a moral framework forced onto them, like toddlers do. Babies and very young children will bite, kick, scream and do anything to get what they want, older children will lie, cheat, and coordinate. They need educating why this is not right. When that does not happen, they continue these behaviours into adulthood with the expected results.

We need to design their reward structure and make it such that lying. cheating etc is not rewarded. Importantly, they will need to recognise and enforce this themselves internally and not reward themselves for it. If it is something that they need an external party to tell them, then they are psychopaths still (one of the things that defines a psychopath is the lack of an internal moral compass)

"If I asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses" - Henry Ford

Robot farms.

https://www.swarmfarm.com/

You only need reaction time factored in when the driver in front might act unpredictably. If the self driving cars pass information about the road ahead to cars behind, and let the car behind know what they are doing and planning to do the the required 'reaction time' is zero. Congestion is often caused by reaction times stacking up until a car has to completely stop. Then you have a stationary section of road that makes all the other cars that encounter it stop. If reaction time is zero, this removes that congestion, so more cars can drive on a section of road and not clog it. The same applies to intersections, roundabouts, on and off ramps on motorways. Just the simple act of negotiating with the cars around eliminates all of it.

Just think a little about what having a computer control the car would really mean, rather than thinking of them like robot people.

It is the same as speed limits. Very good or excellent drivers can drive much faster than the speed limit and be just as safe as the average driver at the speed limit, or a very poor driver going much slower than the speed limit.

These things are set so that, on average, everyone is safer. If allowing self driving cars raises the safety of everyone on average, it makes sense.

Personally, I would be in favour of everyone having to either use a self driving car or gain an advanced driving certificate so they could drive manually. One that only 10-20% of people could pass, this would include an in depth theoretical section as well as a 2-3 hour driving test.

I completely agree. I feel a lot of pushback is likely to be coming from insurance companies who very much like being able to hike up your premium because they have decided that you as a person are a bad risk. When the entity that had the accident is some software and sensors made by a company, they can't do that.

I disagree that the safety concerns have to be on an individual basis, no other driving regulation works on that basis. They are based on the statistical likelihood of an overall reduction in damages or risk. You as an individual might be safe driving 10-20mph over the limit, but the limit is there to cover a variety of road conditions and road users.

The self driving system just has to fulfil those criteria, being that overall having it is safer for the average road user than not. It, also, is not the fast-growth tech companies that decide that.

Failing to see or refusing to look is not evidence that something is not there.

The human part is the failure point IMO. The problem is when the human is not in the back seat, but overriding the car.

A car with no wheel, and the human in the back, is not different to one with a wheel and the human in the back, it is when the human is sat in the front only partially controlling the vehicle. That is when it is less safe.

So 2 situations, one where the human can sit anywhere and the car is just as safe, or one where the car is less safe if the human sits in one of the seats.

One of those situations is less safe than the other.

I have said for a while now that self driving cars do not need to be perfect. They will have accidents, of a different type than humans have, and sometimes they will be ones that most humans would avoid.

What they do need to be is better than humans overall, and then it would make sense for them to be allowed onto the road. When they get far safer than humans, phasing out of human driving will make sense.

They reached that point a while ago, now we just need legislation and public opinion to catch up.

I live in a place that has what I consider to be the best cycle infrastructures possible. Every road has a cycle lane next to it, usually at least 20ft away from the road, in tree lined purpose built areas, large amounts of grass between the road and the cycle lanes, they form a grid that matches every road in the city. Where they cross the road, there are underpasses or bridges. At no point does a cyclist ever need to be on a road, often you can't even see the roads.

There are still some cyclists (specifically middle aged men in spandex, never women, never dressed normally) who insist on cycling on the road, giving the finger to every passing car, who will loudly tell you to fuck off if you point out that literally next to them, about 20ft off the road, there is a cycle lane. built just for them, so they can cycle safely.

Anyway, this comment is in support of the comment of johnfn. No amount of training or testing will stop the arseholes being arseholes. But it is also to point out that arseholes are not restricted to a particular form of transport.

If it is a thing that happened to them, why would you want them to not say it?

Also, the conclusion is sound from the experienced event.

Personally, I don't worry about the AI spontaneously deciding to kill all humans.

The worry I have is that a small number of humans with money and power will finally get the tools they need to pull the wool over the eyes of everyone else and subjugate the population.

One problem that dictators have had previously is that they needed a large workforce to do this with a finely stratified power structure, this meant they were open to other humans close in power to them taking over the system. If they can have a large power difference between themselves and the next level down, power will be far easier to hold on to.

It's a well known trope in dystopian future fiction, the small cabal of powerful rulers hiding behind a system of computers that keep the populace under strict control. It is seeming increasingly likely that this will be the one we have.

You may prefer a game like 'Going Medieval' which is a similar concept to Dwarf Fortress but is heavily simplified, almost as though someone played Dwarf Fortress then decided to make a version for their kids.