Ressuder

I did not write what I wrote in a vacuum, it was a response to a post that should make it more than obvious enough what I was talking about. I'm going to quote if here for you:

>"Confession time...

I really want to see fully autonomous vehicles but I don't really believe we'll see them on the road in the next 50 years. I think Google's concerns with being able to reliably pass control between the driver and the computer is warranted. I think that the technology will get stuck in the equivalent of the CGI uncanny valley where they find that the technology has to leave more control with the driver than its capable of to keep the driver engaged but never is capable of full control. My guess is that these systems will evolve into assisted driving technologies that will use force feedback to the driver that will suggest the sanest path but won't take full control until the driver is outside the envelope and will predominantly be used to extend the window where baby boomers can drive and also save inattentive and unsafe drivers for themselves. In other words a drunk behind the wheel is still going to look like a drunk behind the wheel but just less likely to kill someone.

I expect the technology will be displace drivers in military convoys but I don't think it will be good enough for general use. Even if the technology is close I don't think the safety will be as good as the "augmented human" model which will also rapidly improve and so insurance and regulation will continue to hamper rollout.

Would love from those in the know to tell me I'm wrong. I want to believe!"

I'm sure that if you read what I wrote again I wrote "not noticably automated" rather than "not automated", specifically for that reason. People don't know that it's there, it's just the way the car naturally handles for them.

Transmission is completely automated. You never have to handle anything that has to do with it.

ABS and TVS changes how the car functions all the time. You have no control over it whatsoever, and it never hands over control to you.

In other words, none of those contradicts anything I said, and I have no doubt that potentially more things like that will come. However, they will still fall under the same two categories: full automation or non-noticable automation.

Right, which is why I said "not noticably automated" rather than "not automated".

It's hard to tell exactly when fully autonomous vehicles will be ready, but I definitely think it's safe to safe to say that there is not going to be any such thing as a computer-assisted human driver in any significant numbers.

If the intended users are anything else than specialists, it's very rare that anything that is not either fully automated or not noticably automated works out. In fact, even if the user is a specalist - such as a pilot - it often doesn't work out very well. People will misunderstand the system, trust it too much, trust it too little, rely too much on it.

The only solution is full automation. Noting else is going to work.

I don't see what the two have to do with each other. Technical reasons aren't why we don't have self-driving trains, it's just that the economy of things becomes very different when your vehicle is about a kilometre or two long compared to maybe 25 metres.

(Yeah, yeah, I know about the kilometre long Australian semi-trailer trucks, but those aren't really practical in most situations...)

It seems wildly unlikely that no one would try to undercut their competitors, since it's obviously a viable business at current profit margins.

Those numbers are great and all, if you ignore human behaviour. Nobody's saying that wearing a helmet doesn't make you safer if you are in an accident, that's just a strawman.

The real issue is such things as driver behaviour changing around people with helmets making accidents more likely, or mandated helmet usage leading to fewer people choosing the bicycle as their mode of transportation, making things more dangerous in two ways: people choosing other options that are more dangerous than bicycling, and the fact that more bicycles on the road means less danger because 1. people get used to interacting with bicycles in traffic, and 2. there are fewer cars on the road.

You need to look at the broader picture. You can't just look at a fire escape where people gets injured because they trip down the stairs and conclude that the solution should be to remove the fire exit. Sure, it will definitely decrease the number of injuries in that fire exit but that's not really helpful, is it?

I can only imagine that they would get quite annoyed at you, sinve you're ignoring the question and nitpicking on the circumstances. What you're doing is the equivalent of claiming that the Chinese Room argument holds no water because nobody could be that good at translating something that way.

I do find your claim that by doing nothing you can't make a wrong decision quite terrifying though. Let's say that you're standing on a pier with a lifebuoy in your hands and you see someone about to drown. Surely you can not believe that you've done nothing wrong if you do nothing in this case?

It isn't crazy. He's crazy. If I search for the equivalent of "rape" on an aggregator of news, I see one case of a rape 12th of September. A man was arrested for suspected rape on the 9th. Man being charged for brutal rape on the 7th. Four men arrested for suspected rape the same day.

All of these are covered in all the major news sites. The poster your responded to belongs to our equivalent of Trump supporters, meaning that, yes, there is a tiny bit of truth in what he's saying (there are some minor problems with violance and rape amongst the refugees) but the extent is extremely exaggerated and fueled by nationalism, paranoia and xenophobia as well as a complete lack of care about the truth.

https://www.bra.se/bra/brott-och-statistik/valdtakt-och-sexu...

Here you can see some stats that shows the real statistics, and as you can see the levels are stable. Please note also that this isn't only for rape, but all kinds of crimes with a sexual component (i.e. everything from groping, spreading nude pictures, sexual harassment etc).

It's an unrealistic demand, which Assange is fully aware of. The Swedish constitution makes it illegal for politicians to interfer with the judicial system.

Our laws do also, by the way, make it impossible for us to extradite him to the US without the consent of the UK, so it seems awfully convenient that he claims that he would trust an illegal guarantee by the Swedish government but not that it would follow it's own laws. That is, unless the UK is the problem - but then why the hell did he go there in the first place, and stayed there?

Why are you so keen on handing over the decision of austerity measures or not while in a recession, for example, to unelected politicians?

You're joking, but the Visa application does ask this already: "Do you seek to engage in terrorist activities while in the United States or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities?”

People seem to enjoy watching Usain Bolt run, and he certainly doesn't seem to be struggling. Not to mention that he's much less fast compared to the average person compared with climbers.

What does not being able to watch a beheading have to do with "handling the real world"?

The "original team", i.e. Marco Arment, moved on years ago anyway.

That's absolutely untrue. It does no such thing. All it means that as long as you're acting within the norms of our times you're morally neutral. Who has ever aspired to that? "Are you a moral person?" -> "Well, you know. At least I'm not immoral. I just barely pass the bar lowest bar for that". The future will look back at people who pushed beyond that, just like we do today, even if even those people will be (at best) morally neutral on many other issues.

Bartolomé de las Casas, Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi etc, all of these people are looked back upon with great respect because of their morality - but the truth is that none of them would seem like morally great people today. They stand out because they pushed further on certain issues compared to their contemporaries, not because their thoughts and actions would stand out compared to ours (other than that they would seem very backwards and immoral concerning a lot of things).

The US might be well positioned to withstand outside influence, but how do you expect the rest of the world to put their trust in a country where an insane, unstable fascist who has expressed his clear intention to violate international law is a realistic choice as leader?

I find it curious how some people seem to not believe in moral relativism. Do they not recognise that by doing so they are saying that they themselves are "evil" and immoral?

If you look at the contemporaries of the British Empire they do not stand out as exceptional either good or bad morally. Meanwhile, if you compare the Nazis to their contemporaries they do however stand out (though not nearly as some people might think).

To me it seems rather cruel and unfair to label someone or something as "immoral" if they are acting within the limits of accepted and expected behaviour in their environment.

Absolutely not true. If anything, El Capitan improves performance.

I get scared when I hear how many Turkish people talk about the Gülenist movement. The similarities to communism in the US during the 50s and 60s is striking. Sure, based on a "true story" but in the same way that the movie 300 is.

Are you sure that you didn't simply misunderstand what he was doing? When you're used to five degrees celsius water in the summer there really is no such thing as "too cold to enter"...

Social tension is very bad for the stability that allows us to ensure that all have access to food and medicine.

Do you believe that there are any illegal tax arragements used by YC's companies? Because I have to say that if there is not, the problem is on the governments side - not theirs, and trying to have the business side of things solve that kind of problem seems really strange.

Look. You're renting an apartment with four other people and you're all sharing the rent. Then one guy decides that he only wants to pay the rent for the square meters that represent his room, but he still wants to get access to the kitchen, living room, bathroom and have free access to the fridge and free use of the stove.

If you refuse, are you the bully?

Being a part of the EEA and not the EU basically means that you accept most rules from the EU while not being able to influence anything.

The UK really has put themselves in a bad situation here. The main reason people voted to leave was immigration and to "take back power Brussels" and because they were convinced by the campaign that they could still get all the benefits of EU if they left. How will these people feel when they realise that they're going to need to join EEA which will mean the same level of immigration and less political power?

You deal with that by restrictions of noise. Outlawing minarets to stop noise is like banning vodka to stop alcohol drinking. It doesn't make any sense.

I think that what gets confusing for a lot of us from Europe is taht we don't generally have temperature control of our homes like that. There might be some kind of radiators for heating, but that's generally it.

Because it's an idiotic simplification, like writing that "people in power in today's USA understand the only kind of arguments - money. Money of different kinds, but still - overwhelmingly money. This approach shouldn't be underestimated".

I'm amazed that you were amazed. Seems like the perfect job to me. Not only because economically it's obviously fantastic, but also because she came to a company with significant resources and were basically given the freedom to do whatever the hell she wanted with it, without having to think much about an existing identify and business.

And you don't find it curious that what made the original concept implausible suddenly is found to "not be desired" by costumers?