This tool says it includes a workflow GUI and refinement tools, like creating work-specific text recognition models - maybe the others do too? tesseract isn’t packaged with a GUI, but is wrapped by many.
This project seems focused on making tools more accessible and helping the user be more efficient and organized
Joby posted an overview of how to fly their aircraft in MSFS 2024! I’m an engineer at Joby and was lucky enough to be part of the project. If you’d like help setting up your control mappings, let me know!
Actually, we used a recording of a basketball for the sound of the marble bouncing. It wasn’t our original intention, as we initially imagined the ball to have more of a metallic quality. However, the rubbery effect kinda works, I guess. :)
They've had huge pushes to add EVs to their network, which is great but this means it’s an increasingly likely for someone to get stuck. I’d include these instructions in their in-app safety center if I were them…
> Tesla has the highest fatality rate, so that is ruled out! :)
Do you have a source? Genuinely interested. From the little reading I've done Tesla seem to have put quite a bit of thought in to making their cars perform well in crash tests so it seems surprising that they'd have a high fatality rate.
> The study's authors make clear that the results do not indicate Tesla vehicles are inherently unsafe or have design flaws. In fact, Tesla vehicles are loaded with safety technology; the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) named the 2024 Model Y as a Top Safety Pick+ award winner, for example. Many of the other cars that ranked highly on the list have also been given high ratings for safety by the likes of IIHS and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, as well.
> So, why are Teslas — and many other ostensibly safe cars on the list — involved in so many fatal crashes? “The models on this list likely reflect a combination of driver behavior and driving conditions, leading to increased crashes and fatalities,” iSeeCars executive analyst Karl Brauer said in the report. “A focused, alert driver, traveling at a legal or prudent speed, without being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, is the most likely to arrive safely regardless of the vehicle they’re driving.”
Sure, makes sense, but then we have the invisible, possibly non existent emergency door release. Do they also go through the effort of pointing this out as a factor in the statistics? Or is that not counted as a design flaw? Whether they’re saying the truth or not, i think in these roles, it’s very easy to omit damaging information while not outright lying. It’s also easy to be taken to lunch by a Tesla person to talk about how to cushion the reports impact.
A good instinct, but the point is it's important to think about what the data means. The authors of the paper are just saying that the populations of people driving each type of car are different so looking at a percentage of fatalities is not particularly informative. If you took all those people who currently drive 20 year old fords at 10 under the speed limit and put them in teslas, maybe the tesla fatality rate per billion miles would start to look a bit better.
So it's because irresponsible tech bros & the like are driving high performance electric cars at speeds and accelerations that they're not used to after the Toyota that they owned previously?
I feel like this gonna become a real problem as (any brand of) electric cars fill out the world's fleet.
The analysis you refer to isn’t super interesting as it’s not controlled.
You’d need to be able to prove that independent safety and crash testing organisations are pushing out faulty results, since Teslas are among the safest (if not the safest) cars by their standards.
That statistic is not controlling for the drivers. It's interesting, but it may be biased by who buys Tesla and how they drive. Similar to likely "cars with aggressive custom paint jobs have higher fatality rate".
Maybe. Taxi drivers have different incentives/experience/routes than the other population. It may apply to them, or not. For ride share, the choice of Tesla may have been mainly economical for them.
I would still favour the car that has good crash test safety scores and AI powered safety features that work relatively well according to independent tests, over the random taxi.
But otherwise I agree, the door opening mechanism should be improved.
Regulations are written in blood.. it’s really disappointing to see a car make it to production without an obvious mechanical way to open the door. I’ve been in many teslas and hadn’t given this much thought, figuring there’d surely be a way to open the door if I need to get out.
These ads feel like YouTube Short sketches. A little absurd, and a bit of a fantasy land. Would people really interact this way - word for word?
I think being aspirational with AI can feel a bit in-humane. A lot of people seeing this experience a bit of cringe when the topic of AI is brought up. Maybe they’re worried about their job, that technology is too pervasive - whatever it is, they’re uncomfortable. It’s an easier pill to swallow if I can laugh at it. Apple seems to be picking up on that in these ads.
I remember first discussions about removing the GIL back in 2021 and a lot of initial confusion about what the implications would be. This is a great summary if, like me, you weren’t satisfied with the initial explanations given at the time.
You can find forum and Reddit posts going back 15-20 years of people attempting to remove the GIL, Guido van Rossum just made the requirement that single core performance cannot be hurt by removing it, this made ever previous attempt fail in the end
I only started to really appreciate having a web page archive after cataloging the coffee I drank, which often have pages full of detail about the beans until they sell out and then, poof!, they’re taken offline.
