isodnhionio

>If you’re knowledgeable enough to know what the error codes mean, you would know that cmd-V gives you verbose logging.

This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. You assume that anyone who doesn't know every hidden Macintosh hotkey is so ignorant of computers they won't even know how to look up an error code. If there are magic hotkeys that modify the boot sequence, that might be some information I would like to know when trying to boot my computer! Why not display those hotkeys during the boot sequence like a normal OS?

In my experience, people hate when cars just flash a "check engine" light. It is impossible to tell the difference between "probably OK but get it looked at", "might leave you stranded", and "might literally explode".

Cars show error codes every few months or years and there's nothing the average driver can do to fix them. Computers show errors on a daily basis and most of them are trivially fixable.

>Users have no business seeing error codes. Those are for devs. Hiding them away in devtools is a very good thing.

I can't say I agree. That would be a good idea in a world where users never encountered errors in normal circumstances, but in fact computers don't work very well and users encounter errors on a regular basis.

Using computers is a skill. It takes study. You can either pretend that it doesn't, giving users something underpowered that is going to break anyway, or acknowledge that computers are complicated, and build tools and resources to help users navigate them. And users should recognize it as folly to try to use the most complicated tools on the planet today without any understanding of how they work.

This doesn't really apply to HTTP status codes. They're largely useless. It does apply to the way my Macintosh told me of a misconfiguration after I reinstalled the operating system. Somehow the people at Apple thought an error code and a brief description would be scary, so they opted for this absolutely terrifying icon instead:

https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y1teY.jpg

(Not my picture, by the way.)

Nothing has ever been a panacea, and people very rarely claim things will be. Cars will be around for a long time. Building public transportation is slow, particularly given the political dysfunction where I live. It's possibly not worth it in rural areas. People often drive even in parts of the world with good public transportation. Replacing human drivers with (working) computers would be a major improvement in safety, efficiency, and functionality.

Systems in the real world exist in competition. The only way for one AI system to take over would be for it to overcome not just all humans but all rival AI systems. For one system to beat all other systems, it would need to be smarter than all of them put together. This means it would need over half the computing power of the entire world. Amassing physical resources is relatively slow and every AI would be trying to prevent one AI from taking over, so gaining 51% of compute would be hard. Algorithmic improvements are impossible (he actually says this), so there's no way one AI could suddenly jump in capability. Compute will be distributed in a power law (for some reason). Every AI will serve as a check on every other.

You may notice this is all nonsense. Somehow it's impossible to amass power without being smarter than everyone else put together despite humans doing it all the time. Does Hotz think Stalin had a brain the size of a skyscraper that he ordered airbrushed out of all photographs? Somehow Hotz can confidently predict how future technologies will work despite us having no idea what they'll look like even in principle. Somehow having gods fighting amongst themselves will work out just fine for the humans in the crossfire.

This "debate" is just people summarizing science fiction at each other. The score is one Atlas Shrugged and nine Star Wars to three Terminators and one I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream.

I would guess it's that GHotz is a shitty writer, has puddle deep knowledge of anything that isn't iPhone firmware, and plays at being a freelance tech journo and produces this kind of hollow pseudo-philosophy that is meant to sound epiphanal but comes across as deeply naïve to anyone with any actual experience in these topics.

This is yet another reason I want Musk in prison. Getting drivers off the road will save lives, and not a small number. Most companies investing in automated driving have built a system that is safe and largely effective. These systems have worked safely in the handful of places they've been deployed. We should be heavily investing in expanding their capabilities.

Yet Tesla's system is the most famous and most widely-deployed and basically doesn't work at all. They have made themselves the face of the technology, and that face is uuuuugly. When people think of self-driving cars, they don't think of Cruze or Waymo. They think of a techbro giggling at his Tesla making fart sounds while it barrels into someone's kitchen.

Tesla's marketing is correct in that self-driving cars will have huge economic benefits and save lives. Their grift is harming the reputation of even legitimate companies. The best way I know to speed up self-driving car development is to shut Tesla down.