Well technically a nuclear bomb would also degrade the jacket of fiber cabling pretty badly, but we don't really concern ourselves with that since it means you're dead and the house is gone anyways.
> Their mistakes are going to be highly publicized, but no one is publicizing the infinite number of dumbass things human drivers do every day to compare it to.
Idea: "Waymo or Human," a site like Scrandle where we watch dashcam clips of insane driving or good driving in a challenging situation and guess if it's a human or self-driving car.
Show me a single source supporting this convoluted claim.
> or at all
That's called anthropomorphizing, as noted in my gp, and it is a different phenomenon from empathy.
> Anthropomorphism (from the Greek words "ánthrōpos" (ἄνθρωπος), meaning "human," and "morphē" (μορφή), meaning "form" or "shape") is the attribution of human form, character, or attributes to non-human entities [0]
"There is a medical condition known as delusional companion syndrome where people can have these feelings of empathy to a much more extreme extent and can be convinced that the objects do have these emotions — but it is much less common than the average anthropomorphizing, Shepard said." [1]
Empathy is an emotional response people have to someone or something.
It is an internal (to the person experiencing it) phenomenon. Feeling empathy does not require the object of the empathy to be intelligent, have emotions, or even thoughts. And it does not require the person experiencing it to believe that the object has the attributes, it does not require anthropomorphizing.
People feel empathy towards all sorts of people, things, and groups.
I absolutely believe that humans would drive on train tracks. There is no shortage of terrible, insane, ignorant, and purely self-interested drivers on the road. Just look at any dashcam video compilation!
The difference, of course, is that when a human does it we just say "what an idiot!" But when a machine does it, some people say "well, obviously machines can't drive and can never drive as well as a human can," which is silly.
>> The difference, of course, is that when a human does it we
Make him pay a fine? take his driving license?
You can say to a person "hey don't do that or else". We know that most understand that and repeated offenses will show outliers that shouldn't be allowed
But waymos aren't like that. All the cars are driven by one program. And we told this program "don't do that" and this program is a repeated offender.
If there was a guy, just one guy, that drove hundreds a car a day, the same as waymo does, we would also push to take away his license even if he personally was driving safer then most drivers.
Of course humans have driven on tracks. The point was that humans driving on tracks is far more rare than driving the wrong way on a one-way street, so this sticks out.
I think there's an epistemological issue in your statement. When a human does it we say "what an idiot" because the driver is performing at a level below the generally accepted proficiency for driving. I think our reasonable expectations for autonomous driving is around an average level of proficiency. I also don't think it's reasonable to delay implementing technology until it's better than the best of us - but this was an utter failure and is not within the bounds of acceptability.
I do think it's fair to argue that this is probably an oversight that can be corrected now that it has been revealed, though.
But in many ways, self-driving cars are better than or equal to the average driver. If I make a mistake once but am otherwise an exemplary driver, am I a bad driver? Same goes with these. The question isn't are they perfect (which is unfair), it's whether they are in aggregate safer than humans, which is objectively true, but people making big examples of issues like this serve only to muddy the water and scare the public needlessly.
So, in the interests of avoiding needless regulation that would make us less safe, I think it's important to point out that these comparisons are unfair & examples are typically extremely rare edge cases.
I agree that in many ways self-driving cars are better than average. And I selfishly want to accelerate the adoption due to the fact that I'll appreciate it the most when other drivers are using it to reduce the chances to getting hit by a drunk or highly distracted driver.
However, I think that driving on tram tracks is unacceptably bad - it is something that a good driver would simply never do outside of really strange circumstances (like complete vision loss due to heavy storm weather). This example shouldn't be used as a single example to bar autonomous vehicles but it should also be properly recognized as unacceptable to be repeated.
I have been using desktop Linux for about the same amount of time and the way I see it now, even on the occasion where I have to troubleshoot something weird (which has maybe been one or two times in the past few years), it doesn't sound any different from the issues people are having with Windows and Mac these days—and at least I can fix it!
Yes exactly. When I had a Mac for work, I had to tinker with that thing just as much if not more so than I do Linux. To windows credit, it was the best of the three when it came to not having to tinker to get what I want, but the lack of ability to configure it in a way that was comfortable and preferable was more limited and difficult, so there were annoyances I had to just live with. The point at which they started injecting ads into my desktop experience was a dark day and the day I said goodbye
Oh god, I had a Mac for work recently and had to spend 3 weeks becoming an expert in Mac External Displays And Thunderbolt just to get my HP Thunderbolt 4 dock (officially compatible with Macs!) to use a dual monitor setup with it. Finally I got it working, but every configuration I tried Just Worked(tm) on Linux. Jeez...
This sounds more like problem of HP’s dock than a Mac. Just because they said it is officially compatible with Mac doesn’t mean it is. Also, compatible with which Mac- Intel or M series? I use three different docks on two Mac Mini (M4 Pro) and they all worked out of the box. I did my research before buying them by watching YouTube reviews.
This is exactly the double standard, or bias when talking operating systems.
When it's macOS/Windows, it's someone else's fault; when it's Linux, it's Linux fault.
When you have to tinker on macOS/Windows that's just what has to be done, no biggie; when you have to tinker on Linux, it's a burden nobody should be subjected to.
People are blind to the work they've grown accustomed to. There are many things that are much, much easier on Linux than macOS or Windows.
Indeed, and especially the double standard regarding "oh but on Linux you have to carefully check if the hardware is supported by Linux" but when it's a Mac it will "just work." In GPs comment they have to do the same hardware compat research as a Linux user does, but that's never listed as a downside for Mac
This is a bizarre complaint. There are more Mac users than Linux users but still far fewer than Windows users. As such, there are so many examples of hardware and software that are incompatible with Mac. Our IT dude keeps telling me to switch to Windows because of better support from third party vendors.
My comment was specifically about the HP dock. I have nothing for or against Linux as I have never used it, don't know anybody who uses it, and I have no plans to use it. I am simply not qualified to comment on Linux.
Don't take it personal. This wasn't about you specifically, but the sentiment frequently observed. No one would have been blaming HP when we were talking Linux. The need for tinkering, or hardware considerations is frequently brought up against Linux; it's never brought up for macOS, on the contrary, on macOS everything "just works" - even when it doesn't. On Windows, for years, you had/have to search the web for obscure software and drivers, then download them from shady third-party websites, repeating the process for updates; on Linux you always were able to install and update almost everything signed and shipped from trusted sources through the package manager, long before app stores, but apparently adding a line to some config file is unbearable inconvenience. Somehow people are very ignorant about the limitations (sometimes unfixable) and troubleshooting in Windows and macOS, but hyper vigilant when it comes to Linux.
I am running this Fedora installation for a few years, now. No clean install in-between, just super stable and pleasant upgrades. Everything just works for me. Zero tinkering. If there is a bug, it's usually tracked and gone in a few weeks, at most the next release 6 months off. If a HP dock doesn't work, it's HP's fault for not using open standards, certainly not a problem of Linux.
So Mac doesn't support DisplayPort MST like everyone else does (Windows and Linux have supported this STANDARD for years), because they are assholes and don't care about their users, and the fact that multi monitor support is different between Intel Macs, certain M1s (cannot use more than one external monitor at all!), and the rest of the Apple Silicon lineup (other M1s, M2+) is insane.
I eventually got it working on this Intel Mac by using one HDMI and one specific DisplayPort output on the dock so it wouldn't try to multistream it internally in the dock or whatever (can't remember what exactly it was doing). It might have involved an HDMI to DP converter. I honestly tried to purge my memory of it once I got it working.
Note that all setups worked fine with Linux without modifications. Would have likely worked fine on Windows, too, since it supports MST. Only one specific setup worked with Mac.
So no, it's not a problem of the dock, it's a problem with Apple refusing to support a standard so they can make people buy the expensive $400 docks they hawk in Apple stores. Or because they are lazy and think because they don't care, their users shouldn't either.
You will find many people complaining about Mac's multi monitor support (or lack thereof) online. They are choosing to ignore user feedback.
> Openbox does everything I need it to. I don’t want Mac or Windows, they both suck in ways I can’t change.
Sure, Linux can be rougher, but at least I’m not helpless here. I can make the changes I need, and the software is generally less broken IME
My understanding of modern Bose kit based on RTINGS reviews is that it's fairly competitive in its price range. Still a touch pricey for what you get, but not bad by any means—like 2nd/3rd best, and occasionally punching above its weight for their midrange offerings. They seem to be #1 for comfort (headphones) though.
I don't own any, I've just read reviews from when I was in the market for new headphones and earbuds.
The AI bubble is kind of like the dot-com bubble in that it's a revolutionary technology that will certainly be a huge part of the future, but it's still overhyped (i.e. people are investing without regard for logic).
We were enjoying cheap second hand rack mount servers, RAM, hard drives, printers, office chairs and so on for a decade after the original dot com crash. Every company that went out of business liquidated their good shit for pennies.
I'm hoping after AI comes back down to earth there will be a new glut of cheap second hand GPUs and RAM to get snapped up.
Right. And same for railways, which had a huge bubble early on. Over-hyped on the short time horizon. Long term, they were transformative in the end, although most of the early companies and early investors didn’t reap the eventual profits.
At the time it was overhyped because just by adding .com to your company's name you could increase your valuation regardless of whether or not you had anything to do with the internet. Is that not stupid?
I think my comparison is apt; being a bubble and a truly society-altering technology are not mutually exclusive, and by virtue of it being a bubble, it is overhyped.
There was definitely a lot of stupid stuff happening. IMO the clearest accurate way to put it is that it was overhyped for the short term (hence the crazy high valuations for obvious bullshit), and underhyped for the long term (in the sense that we didn't really foresee how broadly and deeply it would change the world). Of course, there's more nuance to it, because some people had wild long-term predictions too. But I think the overall, mainstream vibe was to underappreciate how big a deal it was.
I always found that idea funny. For most people the most important thing over the course is working days and time off days. When do they have to get up, when do they have to work, when do they need to get going early, to get to some work location, an office maybe, and when do they not have to work. Saying that "the week starts on Sunday" makes me immediately think: "Oh, you start working on Sunday?". In most people's minds in my bubble the work starts on Monday, which makes it the more natural start of the week, at least I would argue. To me personally starting the week on Sunday seems removed from most people's job and work reality.
In many calendar applications one can actually configure things like that. Often the option is directly named something like "start week on Monday/Sunday".
We also shouldn't neglect the fact, that other cultures other customs. Maybe the week starts on Sunday in your location, maybe it doesn't in my location.
reply