You're right - turns out as someone who's lived in Oakland for more than a decade I didn't know what it was like. Sometimes you need an outside perspective. Thanks.
For Google Drive files, you don't need a special account or service to back up to Synology and B2, which I also do. I use the Synology Cloud Sync service to automatically sync all Google Drive files to the synology, then another Cloud Sync task to backup the Synology to B2. Works great.
Synology is indeed great, but CubeBackup is a nice alternative for me as it runs on a VPS. I’m often away from home for long periods due to business travel, and I like being able to remotely keep the backups working even if the NAS goes down or is turned off.
Good to point out, thanks. It's talking about a past study (past edition/version?) from the same source -- Anderson Economic Group.
It seems likely they used the same methodology in the 2023 edition and just updated some numbers, but you're right to point out it's not entirely safe to just assume that.
It's still not "garbage" to look at what people said about a past report on the same thing with the same conclusions from the same source.
One of the main things they point out in this fairly short piece, was that the report included an hourly rate for waiting for a charge was included. That seems to be true in the 2023 "edition" too. That may or may not be "fair" to include, it's a matter of opinion I suppose, but I definitely didn't realize it was a major part of their "expense" calculation until someone pointed it out. (A commenter in the thread here also points it out).
Do we have any data about people actually becoming sick because of toilet flushing aerosols? Everyone enters bathrooms and flushes multiple times per day, but is not constantly sick. So is this actually a problem or just "gross if you think about it"?
My gut reaction to this was “why bother.” But even if a pathogen isn’t spread via toilet water aerosol today, it doesn’t mean a new pathogen can’t emerge that could use this transmission vector in the future.
That said, a virus that spreads in this manner should be containable by having some kind of sterilization agent in the toilet water (already commercially available products you can use that adds bleach (or similar) to the water. Typically a slowly dissolving brick of chemical added to the back of your toilet
Simple solution is to always put the lid down. Bonus it settles the "seat up vs seat down discussion", with a draw where everybody has skin in the game. I believe it helps keep my immune reserves up stronger by having less busy work. I also keep by toothbrush outside the bath room too.
I think the pandemic has taught us that our infrastructure is not well designed to prevent the spread of disease, and that investment in this area can help prevent future pandemics. We used to treat people getting sick as a normal course of life, but obviously people are getting sick from somewhere. The more we can do to prevent that the better quality of life people will have. And more importantly, the harder it will be for potential pandemics to take off. For example we can do a lot to improve building ventilation, which would help reduce transmission of airborne disease like covid.
> I think the pandemic has taught us that our infrastructure is not well designed to prevent the spread of disease, and that investment in this area can help prevent future pandemics.
The only thing the pandemic has taught me is that other people were getting me sick (at work and/or gym, most likely).
I have not been sick with any respiratory sickness (even common cold) since the beginning of COVID, mostly due to going remote.
Shocker- humans are the primary vector for human pathogens.
So, yes, isolation from humans (and animals) will drastically reduce your exposure to pathogens. And probably, joy, fulfilment, and worthwhile experiences as well.
But, you’re not wrong. And for many people, going into work is a bullshit requirement. Remote work FTW.
You can't catch something from crap that the crapper didn't already have, and most people use the bathroom in private if they can, where you're mostly only exposed to stuff from household members.
Cars delivered today without USS will not have: "Park Assist: alerts you of surrounding objects when the vehicle is traveling <5 mph." (among other features like Summon)
This is the most basic feature that almost every car has had for years - but not your $60k Model Y. Why can't they wait to remove sensors until they've achieved feature parity with the vision only system? This seems crazy.
I don't really understand the push to do everything through the cameras. This has caused other problems too - like their decision to control automatic wipers with just the camera. Which meant in my Model 3, the automatic wipers were erratic and ineffective while in every other car with a normal $5 rain sensor the feature worked great.
I guess they think their computer vision and AI can catch up to and exceed the visual processing capabilities of vertebrates with their millions of years of evolution. I think they are wrong. Multi-media sensor data fusion is the only sane path for the foreseeable future, in my lay opinion.
They are wrong. A truly unbelievable coincidence coming across this article, I just got rear-ended by a Model 3 this morning.
Low speed, I'd figure about 10 mph tops: A softball to end all softballs for AEB, and somehow I got hit with considerable force. We've had radar based systems that would have avoided this since the 2000s.
I work in the self-driving space and while it's not an apples to apples comparison because of cost, all I could think is how our sensor stack would have allowed recognizing the car I stopped for, and probably the car it stopped for, let alone my car stopping.
I've already harped on how stupid the "FSD Beta" is, but I quite literally the absurdity of it shoved in my face just this morning only to come and read this. Why is Tesla even being allowed to run this circus at this point?
My entire point is that even outside of FSD this is a scenario a base model Corolla has the technology to handle: AEB
You don't actively engage AEB, at the kinds of low speeds involved AEB would have engaged and at least helped stop the car.
This was traffic that was going maybe 20 mph, and the car still hit me solidly enough for my car to lurch forward and almost hit the one in front of me
-
But as an aside, this is why Tesla's "Full Self Driving" shouldn't be on the market: It is always human error.
Even if FSD was enabled (I hope it wasn't) it'd be the human's fault for not reacting.
> Teslas AEB works but if the driver has their foot on the accelerator it won’t.
Seriously?!? Tesla drivers learn to basically always have their foot on the accelerator, because the car slows quite aggressively with the accelerator all the way released.
IMO the one-foot model makes it quite hard to drive without lurching a bit and without unnecessary accidental light breaking while cruising. I often imagine that careful haptic feedback on the pedals could enable a much better one-pedal or blended braking experience.
I feel that may be irrelevant - my 2019 honda odyssey will stop me no matter what. All lane departure / following, cruise control, etc can be off - but automatic emergency braking / anti colission will work. I would not have it otherwise - I do not have any automated stuff in my old wrx, but I wanted all the safety always in the car with my family.
(it is crazy to me how many brands only have the good safety stuff as part of some ridiculous 9000$ sunroom and leather and Sirius xm package / trim ;-< )
It is completely irrelevant, but that's not stopping people from downvoting the anecdote, seemingly because they don't realize (or don't want to accept) the fact that Tesla has regressed so far that they're starting to miss the bar that earlier versions of the same vehicles set with AP1!
Contrary to some of the replies, at low speeds AEB does override the accelerator, unlike the highway ACC component of AP, so it should have engaged.
For the record, I just took delivery of a Model 3 and seemingly all of these safety features can be toggled off in settings. Because of how complex these systems are, it wouldn't surprise me if someone turned off or configured automatic emergency braking because they thought it would make autopilot better or something.
I CAN turn off AEB in my car, but I would NEVER do that, because it's only shown itself to be very reliable. It's radar based. I never get false warnings from stationary objects and I've only had a single warning that I would consider phantom.
The IIHS tests vehicles with automatic emergency braking at 12mph and at 25mph.
When these systems were new, many vehicles were only able to decrease collision speeds. These days, many vehicles completely avoid crashes at both 12 and 25mph.
I tested it a little bit during the 2019 Honda Odyssey test drive. It seemed to work.
FWIW, Then unintentionally I had a bit of real world confirmation: a few months ago a car in front of me in slow traffic made a very sudden and complete stop.
I stepped on the brakes; after a second, as I slowed down, the brake feel completely changed and became harder, and I realized that I hadn't been alone - initially, car was braking for/with me, as confirmed with the massive orange letters on the dash board. Then as the system felt it was out of most immediate danger, it released and it was just me braking (that was the brake pedal feel change).
I do occasionally have it engage stage 1 of 3 (1 Visual -> 2 Audio -> 3 Auto Brake). It happens once a month predictable on very slight curves when it thinks I may be accelerating into oncoming traffic.
>an catch up to and exceed the visual processing capabilities of vertebrates with their millions of years of evolution
I mean tons of technology outperforms humans by a mile... plenty of other computer vision systems already outperform people so not sure why Tesla would be exempt here due to 'evolution'.
We don't have any computer vision system that outperforms mammals, let alone humans, at general vision, Tesla or not - especially on real 3D vision. We do have computer systems that outperform humans at extremely specialized tasks, such as facial recognition in photos.
Again though - these sensors performed a highly specialized task - there is no inherent reason Tesla wouldn’t be able to outperform them with a specialized visual system
The problem of using computer vision to compute distances to moving 3D objects in any weather conditions is too general - it is precisely the generalized vision problem I was talking about.
Ultrasonic or radar or lidar sensors are much simpler solutions to the problem of computing distances, as they do not rely on computer vision.
Note that the reason this problem is very hard for computer vision is that there is simply not enough information in a 2D picture to get 3D distance information, even with parallax. Our eyes also can't solve this problem. Instead, our visual system uses numerous heuristics based on our inherent understanding of simple classical physics and the world around us.
For example, we recognize that a particular blob of color represents a car, and that cars are solid objects, where each part of the car moves at the same speed as each other part (this assumption breaks if something flies off the car). We recognize that objects throw shadows, and what effect shadows have on color, so we can very easily tell the contours of an object even if it's speckled in light and shadow. We also know what approximate sizes cars are, and that means we can immediately differentiate a far away car from a close one. We also know that cars sitting on the road are probably moving, while cars on the sidewalk are probably parked, and that again helps us estimate their movement based on relatively little data.
If you don't believe that depth perception is based on far more than parallax, just try to explain how come people/animals with a single eye can still estimate distances to a very good degree (not enough to be marksmen, but more than enough not to run into walls).
> there is simply not enough information in a 2D picture to get 3D distance information, even with parallax. Our eyes also can't solve this problem.
That is certainly false - perhaps with extremely limited amounts of parallax yes but that isn't how this setup is working. Humans certainly use heuristics not only because our brains are capable of it but also because a face only has a few mm of separation, with enough parallax you can get phenomenal 3d information out of a visual system. Replacing a single sensor here is certainly not too general for good performance but also my point again was never to say this was an optimal or perfect solution only to say evolutionary arguments are stupid here because we build machines and algorithms every day that operate better than evolution does.
Because driving isn't some narrow task. It has a lot of variability in conditions. Human brain is very adaptable, yet we require 16+ years of training before they can take the wheel.
I'm not disagreeing that the task is difficult but this topic isn't about general driving - this is about replacing ultrasonic sensors with visual systems. Evolutionary arguments are meaningless here since we outperform evolution all the time even with hand engineered visual systems, let alone ML derived ones.
Nah I think it's a logistics and cost thing. Adding several extra sensors dramatically increases the complexity of logistics, building the car and the overall costs.
Because if the hardware isn't available they can't deliver the car and recognize the revenue. They can wait, but if they're gonna remove it anyway it lets them make more cars with less costs in shorter time. Seems logical if it is indeed parity.
I feel like Lexus is greatly underappreciated as a technology brand. They might be behind the curve on some things, but when they're ahead of the curve, the execution is always superb.
My 8 year old Golf can't drive itself, but it does a heck of a good job in parallel parking. It works very well, but I have to break and use the throttle.
At the same time, all other manufacturers stopped production until parts were available again. Which is the reasonable thing to do. Only they got ridiculed for how bad the supply chains are, because Tesla continued shipping, that Tesla shipped what is normally considered half finished cars was blissfully ignored.
That would be an extreme logistical and costly nightmare.
Tesla doesn't operate the dealership model, which all tend to double up as a service station. So it's far more difficult for customers to get to the telsa service stations. Since there's less, that also means they'd be insane waits when the product comes back in.
My 2018 VW GTI locked that functionality behind a several thousand dollar interior package or a few hundred dollar dealer software update :( . I literally have the sensors and software, it's just turned off because I don't like leather seats.
Your network packets are making a round trip between your computer and the nearest server the site is on, so there's always going to be a hard limit on site speed based on distance. That has to happen a few times for DNS, OPTIONS, a GET for the HTML, maybe more for any blocking resources. Add on parsing and rendering and it's probably getting close to impossible to get much under 100ms for for websites these days. 5 times that isn't great but it does seem a little unreasonable to complain.
