If there's a person at an intersection directing traffic, it will be very hard to have the car itself communicate with them as easily as a human can. Edge cases like that is where AGI would be needed it seems.
So in this hypothetical is the person directing traffic completely oblivious to the existence of self driving cars? Pretty sure we can assume traffic cops in the future will be trained to deal with self driving cars and use only use gestures from a predefined list.
I would believe that people directing traffic usually use only a handful of signals, but it's certainly not a universal truth. This is one more case of the 80/20 problem that self driving tech keeps running into.
Sure it's probably feasible for cars to handle hand signals in the happy path, but anything outside of that will be disastrous. How will the car understand and communicate with a person who doesn't use the standard signals, aside from having some level of intelligence?
> People directing traffic use only a handful of signals.
Sometimes. Other times they confusingly gesticulate or just shout out things, or even give conflicting signals. Humans can interpret these without much effort but it's a hard AI problem.
The last major cyberattack came from Russia. Russian hacker group ransomware hit US companies. It may not be "The Cold War", but it's definitely US vs Russian nationalism.
To be fair, you would not want to be confronted with the reality of these products 10 years ago, there's been a million bug fixes that have been done since then. But I agree on Search, it's almost like they sabotaged it.
The search too. Wikipedia articles and useful covid graphs. Excellent context inference. The assistant is surprisingly powerful when I ask engineering questions (what's the coefficient for this when that).
There is effectively zero barrier to switching social networks. "Friends" that could only be accessed through Facebook I realized long ago were people I didn't actually care to talk to.
This is not true for billions of people for whom Facebook is the web. Their businesses run on it, their family only communicate through it, and giving it up would mean disconnecting, essentially, from their entire world.
I don't believe this premise that these people only communicate on Facebook.
Sure some businesses are forced on to the platform to communicate with a subset of customers but it's extremely rare that they aren't on all the social platforms AND have their own website.
Family members that are on Facebook have phone numbers and are on other platforms. Maybe you can't spam them with links to every conspiracy website you come across or an endless stream of your kid without them becoming annoyed, but you absolutely can communicate with them. Facebook has only stayed relevant because of the natural lag in popular websites (older folks always get on late) and by buying platforms people have switched to in recent years likes WhatsApp and Instagram. But people do switch and people also are on multiple platforms
A monopoly on what? Spamming users with cat videos / baby videos and various other irrelevancies?
I haven't used Facebook for many years and I can contact family and friends just fine. Granted I use WhatsApp, which is owned by Facebook, but WhatsApp doesn't suffer from censorship (to my knowledge).
There is no monopoly, but an oligopoly. How comfortably would you avoid all 3 of Apple, Google, and Facebook?
These 3 are very similar in their values, operate under the same legislation. The latter is especially worrying for people not from the US, because foreigners' rights are completely unprotected.
Try Telegram. I use neither Facebook nor Whatsapp.
I don't know what Facebook is for, but I'm told that Telegram is a great replacement for Whatsapp and even people who both have Whatsapp seem to prefer Telegram between them.
One nuance being that while having access to an ISP is becoming more and more of a necessity to function in today's society, one can live a very happy life without Facebook :)
+1 ONI. Truly a black hole that manages to warp time itself.
Also maddening being an early fan in beta, then repeatedly throwing out whole designs, plans and game files as they kept adding new things in the game and changing them.
Some of the links are from 10 years ago, and it shows. His views on solar being too expensive for practical use seem anachronistic now, and I'm sure his opinion has changed with the market.
If a 9-year-old types into Google, they will easily find porn.
But, maybe it shouldn't be so easy. And yes, once they're in middle school and high school they'll just figure out alternatives, but I don't think it's unreasonable to put up some dead simple barriers to protect innocence.
Just because it was easy for those of us growing up in the 90s and after doesn't mean all children have to be exposed like that.
All these legalistic reponses, and yet none really touches the sheer absurdity of sentencing someone to 1,000 years. Doesn't the lifespan of a human being figure in at any point? Talking this way is dehumanizing.
Raping a 4-year-old girl is pretty dehumanizing for the victim. I think of an absurdly long sentence as a way of conveying how abhorrent the justice system finds that behavior.
In the US, it's possible to be let out of jail for a life sentence in only 7 years, when you account for parole.
Judges are elected officials, so sometimes they like to make a nice big show of giving out a 1000 year sentence to appease the masses, when "life in prison without parole" would have done the same job.
Let us say that the punishment for murder in the first degree is always a 50 year jail term. A man who is 75 years of age is charged with two murders and convicted.
1. At 75 years of age, he will not live to be 175
2. The law dictates that the punishment per murder must be 50 years
3. He's been convicted of two murders, and must have both charges applied to him unless we are not to expect punishment for one of the victims.
Ergo, he must have a term much longer than his lifespan.
There are a thousand details I just skipped over (concurrent sentances, multiple crimes commited in the same act, stacking versus non-stacking offenses, etc) but this isn't unusual and is a perfectly rational and sane outcome.
I mean if we're getting into it, "white man" basically genocided their whole population with disease. The Native Americans never did anything nearly so heinous.
I'm not sure I understand your comment. If the genocide happened due to diseases imported from the Old World, how is it "heinous"? It happened at a time where people had no clue what diseases and immune systems were.
But that happened in the 18th century though, by then of course, empirical observation had played its role and a few people tried to weaponize it. I'm pretty sure accidental contamination during the 2 preceding centuries had already caused a massive decline in population.
Whether or not they knew they were transporting disease at the time really doesn't excuse the end result: mass genocide. And of course this doesn't authorize taking land.
It totally excuses it. Intent is key. If you have no clue what a disease, a virus, an immune system are I don't see how you can be called "heinous" for unknowingly and unwillingly spread diseases.
As for lands, I don't know, lands all over the world have been changing hands since human beings learnt how to walk, most of the time after violence/war. It happened in 1500 when the concept of "nation" didn't even exist and the only way to say that a land was yours was to be able to keep it.
Well, then China is responsible for mass genocide due to Covid-19 then. After all, whether or not they knew they were transporting disease to other countries 6 months back really doesn't excuse the end result.
